Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Sorry, Robert, but this sounds like denial to me. None of your 3 really come close to the magnitude of this pandemic crisis.
There's only one way to halt this virus. A vaccine. Until we get one it will kill millions.
It seems to be possible for South Korea to contain the growth of the thing even now, with hardly any time to respond and while we know very little about it. Why do you assume it's impossible for other developed countries to do it with more time and more information?
As I understand it, all they are doing is flattening the peaks which will continue to come in waves until we get a vaccine. The virus will move through 80% of the world's population.
Frankly, until there is significantly more data on this bug, you have absolutely no idea whether that is true or not.
The finance minister of Germany’s Hesse state, Thomas Schäfer, has killed himself after apparently becoming “deeply worried” about how to deal with the economic impact of coronavirus.
I, too, see positives emerging from this. I'm hoping it's an opportunity for re-configuration. The capitalist greed of the world economy which has sought to suck the life out of Mother Nature is being taught a long and very painful karmic lesson.
I also see re-configuration in our personal lives. People are networking in new ways and finding different opportunities to be resourceful. They are also facing up to death: the possibility that it might strike is not something most people consider. Learning a little humility in the face of our mortality is not always a bad thing.
The mighty are being laid low.
I would not be bothered if Covid-19 carried me off. I feel like I have had more than enough of the world already.
I don't know your age, Mr C, but I've no intention of giving in. The the virus or anything else. I shall keep going as best I can! There are several birthdays in my family in the next few weeks and I intend to raise a glass at all of them, even if we are only looking at each other through a computer screen! And No 2 son has a significant order from a Chinese customer!
And what is more, here at any rate the sun is shining!
Mr. B, that's terrible to hear. Beyond corona itself, and the economic impact, there's going to be a significant degree of psychological difficulty to handle as well.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Sorry, Robert, but this sounds like denial to me. None of your 3 really come close to the magnitude of this pandemic crisis.
There's only one way to halt this virus. A vaccine. Until we get one it will kill millions.
It seems to be possible for South Korea to contain the growth of the thing even now, with hardly any time to respond and while we know very little about it. Why do you assume it's impossible for other developed countries to do it with more time and more information?
As I understand it, all they are doing is flattening the peaks which will continue to come in waves until we get a vaccine. The virus will move through 80% of the world's population.
I'm sorry, but if no more that 5% of your population has the virus at any time, then you have won. Sure, you'll have 10-30,000 excess deaths, and a nasty recession. But all that proves is how lucky we are. The worst pandemic in memory and it was unpleasant.
Mr. B, that's terrible to hear. Beyond corona itself, and the economic impact, there's going to be a significant degree of psychological difficulty to handle as well.
I am already suffering on that front Mr Dancer...
Personally, I can understand Herr Schafer's actions.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
That's why elimination is not an option.
When the disease is rampant (as it is now), you need to get R0 to 0.1 or 0.2.
You need to implement draconian measures - as we have done - to reduce the number of new infections to 20 to 50 per day. Italy is now on it's way to that. By the end of this week, the number of active cases will probably be in decline. Two weeks from that, six weeks into lockdown, new infections will be under 100 a day.
After this, you implement containment. The goal is to stop R0 frome being 3 again, and to ensure it's no more than 1.
So yes, people bring it. And yes, people get infected.
Think of this in human disease terms. We want CV-19 to be a chronic condition. We want it to be something society manages.
And yes, there are painful side effects from stopping people doing what they'd normally do. But they move it from a disease that kills you, to one that can be managed.
As an aside, if you can be reinfected with CV-19, then there won't be a vaccine.
The whole point about a vaccine is that it "trains" your immune system to recognise the threat, so it attacks it immediately. And the greatest training your immune system can have is to have, you know, actually have the virus in the first place.
Mr. B, that's terrible to hear. Beyond corona itself, and the economic impact, there's going to be a significant degree of psychological difficulty to handle as well.
I am already suffering on that front Mr Dancer...
Personally, I can understand Herr Schafer's actions.
C'mon, you aren't in charge of the economic well being of many millions of people. Steel yourself for the next few weeks being grim. Just write off April. But don't set it as the benchmark for the future. Because come May, we'll start to know hope again. We'll be on speaking terms with optimism, as the ground bursts forth.
And that optimism will show itself in many ways. For one thing, people are going to come out of this demanding their politicians take more care of the world we live in. Of those who live here. It will be a better place. Be part of demanding that.
And those who have been locked away will be coming up with ideas. I can see there being a great outpouring of creativity after the lockdown ends.
And with all the money you have saved during the lockdown, treat yourself. Go online, find the most amazing shoe-maker - and have them make you THE most exquisitely comfortable yet OMG wonderful pair of shoes you have ever worn. Sure, it will spoil you for ever for off-the-shelf shop bought shoes. But that shoe-maker NEEDS YOU after this is over. Get them - and you - on their wonderful feet again. They will be your reminder of what you went through - and came out of the other side.
And then, there's the booting out of Trump to look forward to in November....
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
International travel is out for the foreseeable future, unless you wan to spnd your two weeks in Italy or Spain or France in a detention centre waiting on your quarantine result.
I think even within the UK, travel will be restricted. Visiting relatives maybe. But not for holidaying. Not until at least July would be my guess. Not until at least 14 days without a confirmed case.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
‘ inflation needs to have a large velocity of money’
Does it? 🤔
I thought inflation caused a higher velocity of money because people need to spend it quickly before it loses its value.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
International travel is out for the foreseeable future, unless you wan to spnd your two weeks in Italy or Spain or France in a detention centre waiting on your quarantine result.
I think even within the UK, travel will be restricted. Visiting relatives maybe. But not for holidaying. Not until at least July would be my guess. Not until at least 14 days without a confirmed case.
@Pulpstar - I think deflation is what should happen. But then that's what should have happened after the GFC. It didn't, and I don't expect governments will allow it to happen this time. The money printed over the next few years will make what happened after the GFC look like a blip.
Mr. B, that's terrible to hear. Beyond corona itself, and the economic impact, there's going to be a significant degree of psychological difficulty to handle as well.
I am already suffering on that front Mr Dancer...
Personally, I can understand Herr Schafer's actions.
Sorry to hear that Beverley.
Keep your chin up. This won’t last forever - even if it feels like it will right now.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
International travel is out for the foreseeable future, unless you wan to spnd your two weeks in Italy or Spain or France in a detention centre waiting on your quarantine result.
I think even within the UK, travel will be restricted. Visiting relatives maybe. But not for holidaying. Not until at least July would be my guess. Not until at least 14 days without a confirmed case.
Are all our flights inbound now freight ?
Pretty much, with a few stragglers trying to get home from various places. A lot of flights that appear to be running as usual are almost empty of pax, but with cargo onboard. That extra cargo capacity is keeping critical supply chains open (and a lot of people in work who would otherwise be laid off).
I’m staggered. I never thought anyone living other than me had read A Prince of the Captivity.
One of the few Buchan books to have gone out of print - and it’s very easy to see why.
True - but it has it's moments. You could easily update it and make it a mini-series : Disgraced soldier becomes spy and then tries to find the leaders to help rebuild a world mired in conflict and depression. And fighting pseudo-Nazis...
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
International travel is out for the foreseeable future, unless you wan to spnd your two weeks in Italy or Spain or France in a detention centre waiting on your quarantine result.
I think even within the UK, travel will be restricted. Visiting relatives maybe. But not for holidaying. Not until at least July would be my guess. Not until at least 14 days without a confirmed case.
Are all our flights inbound now freight ?
Pretty much, with a few stragglers trying to get home from various places. A lot of flights that appear to be running as usual are almost empty of pax, but with cargo onboard. That extra cargo capacity is keeping critical supply chains open (and a lot of people in work who would otherwise be laid off).
Ok That's good. I did make a comment about stopping flights ages ago but looks like it takes a number of deaths to get there >< Business as usual/normalcy bias won't be there when/if a second wave hits
Johnson looked like shit on Sky News. The engraver is getting ready to start putting @Paristonda on the trophy. I presume the hypothetical tory leadership contest would be Sunak vs Raab. Alien vs Predator.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
As an aside Khazhstan would be pretty dumb to hoarde food. It has substantial foreign currency debts it needs to service, and its agriculture depends on the importation of potash and nitrogen fertilizers.
So, it needs export earnings to be able to produce that food.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
@Pulpstar - I think deflation is what should happen. But then that's what should have happened after the GFC. It didn't, and I don't expect governments will allow it to happen this time. The money printed over the next few years will make what happened after the GFC look like a blip.
And Endillion is wrong downthread that the government package is simply "replacing" lost income. Because the lost income, in retail, travel, hospitality and leisure, would have come from other people's bank accounts, and those accounts (i.e. people with steady income - pensioners and many of the employed) simply aren't spending. Meanwhile supply is shrinking as production and trade are disrupted. When this 'wall of money' is released, an inflationary spike looks likely IMO.
The humorous recommendation downthread that Beib_C should plan to spend her 'saving' on shoes makes the point. A lot of people will be chasing fewer shoes.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
As an aside Khazhstan would be pretty dumb to hoarde food. It has substantial foreign currency debts it needs to service, and its agriculture depends on the importation of potash and nitrogen fertilizers.
So, it needs export earnings to be able to produce that food.
One thing I noticed in yesterday's stats is that a few countries in that region (the 'stans'), despite having case numbers of one or two hundred, have suddenly started recording 25% daily increases.
Johnson looked like shit on Sky News. The engraver is getting ready to start putting @Paristonda on the trophy. I presume the hypothetical tory leadership contest would be Sunak vs Raab. Alien vs Predator.
I notice that a lot of these politicians look shit when they are broadcast from home. Whether it's the likes of Skype that make people look terrible, or whether its the TV makeup department that normally makes people look better, I don't know?
How can renewable energy stay profitable if oil keeps dumping?
It is the capital cost that is the issue with alternative energy, so no new windmills will be built. But those that already exist will continue to turn because there is close to zero marginal cost of production.
More optimistically, an example of catastrophic market failure will finally get the world to introduce a carbon tax, which should be a no-brainer anyway.
Unfortunately, with the most dangerous criminal organisation in history running the most powerful country in the world, it's hard to be optimistic.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
‘ inflation needs to have a large velocity of money’
Does it? 🤔
I thought inflation caused a higher velocity of money because people need to spend it quickly before it loses its value.
I agree. Conversely, it doesn't really matter how much money is lying around, if no one is spending it there is no demand and you will get deflation. So I would answer the question of whether inflation needs to have a large velocity of money in the affirmative.
And if anyone has any doubts about that look at your daily Debenhams email.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
Sigh - that was in the context of an extreme hypothetical - quite common in Operational Research. You ask - if we take X to an extreme, what is the result Y.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
International travel is out for the foreseeable future, unless you wan to spnd your two weeks in Italy or Spain or France in a detention centre waiting on your quarantine result.
I think even within the UK, travel will be restricted. Visiting relatives maybe. But not for holidaying. Not until at least July would be my guess. Not until at least 14 days without a confirmed case.
Are all our flights inbound now freight ?
Pretty much, with a few stragglers trying to get home from various places. A lot of flights that appear to be running as usual are almost empty of pax, but with cargo onboard. That extra cargo capacity is keeping critical supply chains open (and a lot of people in work who would otherwise be laid off).
Ok That's good. I did make a comment about stopping flights ages ago but looks like it takes a number of deaths to get there >< Business as usual/normalcy bias won't be there when/if a second wave hits
According to a friend who works as BA cabin crew the passenger work includes a lot of repatriation flights.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
@Pulpstar - I think deflation is what should happen. But then that's what should have happened after the GFC. It didn't, and I don't expect governments will allow it to happen this time. The money printed over the next few years will make what happened after the GFC look like a blip.
And Endillion is wrong downthread that the government package is simply "replacing" lost income. Because the lost income, in retail, travel, hospitality and leisure, would have come from other people's bank accounts, and those accounts (i.e. people with steady income - pensioners and many of the employed) simply aren't spending. Meanwhile supply is shrinking as production and trade are disrupted. When this 'wall of money' is released, an inflationary spike looks likely IMO.
The humorous recommendation downthread that Beib_C should plan to spend her 'saving' on shoes makes the point. A lot of people will be chasing fewer shoes.
Dare I say that looks a pretty public sector viewpoint where wages are still being paid and pent up demand being created. A sole trader like me is taking a very substantial hit from this crisis and will have reduced spending for at least the next 2 years. No holidays, no unnecessary travel, make do and mend, retirement date once again fading into the far distance.
Johnson looked like shit on Sky News. The engraver is getting ready to start putting @Paristonda on the trophy. I presume the hypothetical tory leadership contest would be Sunak vs Raab. Alien vs Predator.
I notice that a lot of these politicians look shit when they are broadcast from home. Whether it's the likes of Skype that make people look terrible, or whether its the TV makeup department that normally makes people look better, I don't know?
Without the makeup, everyone looks crap on camera. Famously, was supposed to have done for Nixon, in Nixon vs Kennedy.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Not if there is no demand. Personally I would be stripping seats out of my planes and focusing on freight for the foreseeable.
The F1 teams collectively have been doing a lot to help, with their extensive design houses, rapid prototyping and production facilities that would otherwise be trying to make cars go faster.
It's a credit to them that they stepped up, and a shining example of how organisations that many consider to be engaged in trivial or even damaging activity can be very useful when applied in the real world.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Not if there is no demand. Personally I would be stripping seats out of my planes and focusing on freight for the foreseeable.
Real cargo versions of planes require extensive work - will there really be a massive increase in air freight?
The F1 teams collectively have been doing a lot to help, with their extensive design houses, rapid prototyping and production facilities that would otherwise be trying to make cars go faster.
It's a credit to them that they stepped up, and a shining example of how organisations that many consider to be engaged in trivial or even damaging activity can be very useful when applied in the real world.
They simply have many of the best engineers in the world. Its great that they have turned their talents to this.
@Pulpstar - I think deflation is what should happen. But then that's what should have happened after the GFC. It didn't, and I don't expect governments will allow it to happen this time. The money printed over the next few years will make what happened after the GFC look like a blip.
And Endillion is wrong downthread that the government package is simply "replacing" lost income. Because the lost income, in retail, travel, hospitality and leisure, would have come from other people's bank accounts, and those accounts (i.e. people with steady income - pensioners and many of the employed) simply aren't spending. Meanwhile supply is shrinking as production and trade are disrupted. When this 'wall of money' is released, an inflationary spike looks likely IMO.
The humorous recommendation downthread that Beib_C should plan to spend her 'saving' on shoes makes the point. A lot of people will be chasing fewer shoes.
Dare I say that looks a pretty public sector viewpoint where wages are still being paid and pent up demand being created. A sole trader like me is taking a very substantial hit from this crisis and will have reduced spending for at least the next 2 years. No holidays, no unnecessary travel, make do and mend, retirement date once again fading into the far distance.
Yep, the middle-class self-employed (in various structures) are going to be some the worst affected by all this. Plenty of us on here, no doubt.
I had a flurry of work a couple of weeks ago setting up WFH tools, but it's now completely dead bar the odd support call, with no idea when it's going to improve.
I’m staggered. I never thought anyone living other than me had read A Prince of the Captivity.
One of the few Buchan books to have gone out of print - and it’s very easy to see why.
True - but it has it's moments. You could easily update it and make it a mini-series : Disgraced soldier becomes spy and then tries to find the leaders to help rebuild a world mired in conflict and depression. And fighting pseudo-Nazis...
Possibly - it would need a very extensive rewrite though. Buchan himself seemed almost to be trying to rewrite and improve on The Dancing Floor, but it still didn't work because it basically isn't a plausible idea.
Johnson looked like shit on Sky News. The engraver is getting ready to start putting @Paristonda on the trophy. I presume the hypothetical tory leadership contest would be Sunak vs Raab. Alien vs Predator.
I notice that a lot of these politicians look shit when they are broadcast from home. Whether it's the likes of Skype that make people look terrible, or whether its the TV makeup department that normally makes people look better, I don't know?
Without the makeup, everyone looks crap on camera. Famously, was supposed to have done for Nixon, in Nixon vs Kennedy.
Lighting too, as was explained to Mrs Thatcher when she wondered why the BBC needed so many people to set up one of her broadcasts.
@Pulpstar - I think deflation is what should happen. But then that's what should have happened after the GFC. It didn't, and I don't expect governments will allow it to happen this time. The money printed over the next few years will make what happened after the GFC look like a blip.
And Endillion is wrong downthread that the government package is simply "replacing" lost income. Because the lost income, in retail, travel, hospitality and leisure, would have come from other people's bank accounts, and those accounts (i.e. people with steady income - pensioners and many of the employed) simply aren't spending. Meanwhile supply is shrinking as production and trade are disrupted. When this 'wall of money' is released, an inflationary spike looks likely IMO.
The humorous recommendation downthread that Beib_C should plan to spend her 'saving' on shoes makes the point. A lot of people will be chasing fewer shoes.
Dare I say that looks a pretty public sector viewpoint where wages are still being paid and pent up demand being created. A sole trader like me is taking a very substantial hit from this crisis and will have reduced spending for at least the next 2 years. No holidays, no unnecessary travel, make do and mend, retirement date once again fading into the far distance.
+1 to this. My wife doesn't see what the fuss is about (she's public sector able to work from home), but I'm going to be watching the pennies for a long time as I'm watching parts of my customer base evaporate.
Thankfully last years holidays were large so I don't need to repeat them again for a while and this year's is only a trip to Cornwall to do tourist things and see friends.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Not if there is no demand. Personally I would be stripping seats out of my planes and focusing on freight for the foreseeable.
Real cargo versions of planes require extensive work - will there really be a massive increase in air freight?
Its more that there is no demand for passenger planes and a plane is a fairly substantial investment to simply scrap.
@Pulpstar - I think deflation is what should happen. But then that's what should have happened after the GFC. It didn't, and I don't expect governments will allow it to happen this time. The money printed over the next few years will make what happened after the GFC look like a blip.
And Endillion is wrong downthread that the government package is simply "replacing" lost income. Because the lost income, in retail, travel, hospitality and leisure, would have come from other people's bank accounts, and those accounts (i.e. people with steady income - pensioners and many of the employed) simply aren't spending. Meanwhile supply is shrinking as production and trade are disrupted. When this 'wall of money' is released, an inflationary spike looks likely IMO.
The humorous recommendation downthread that Beib_C should plan to spend her 'saving' on shoes makes the point. A lot of people will be chasing fewer shoes.
Dare I say that looks a pretty public sector viewpoint where wages are still being paid and pent up demand being created. A sole trader like me is taking a very substantial hit from this crisis and will have reduced spending for at least the next 2 years. No holidays, no unnecessary travel, make do and mend, retirement date once again fading into the far distance.
+1 to this. My wife doesn't see what the fuss is about (she's public sector able to work from home), but I'm going to be watching the pennies for a long time as I'm watching parts of my customer base evaporate.
Thankfully last years holidays were large so I don't need to repeat them again for a while and this year's is only a trip to Cornwall to do tourist things and see friends.
Johnson looked like shit on Sky News. The engraver is getting ready to start putting @Paristonda on the trophy. I presume the hypothetical tory leadership contest would be Sunak vs Raab. Alien vs Predator.
I notice that a lot of these politicians look shit when they are broadcast from home. Whether it's the likes of Skype that make people look terrible, or whether its the TV makeup department that normally makes people look better, I don't know?
Without the makeup, everyone looks crap on camera. Famously, was supposed to have done for Nixon, in Nixon vs Kennedy.
Lighting too, as was explained to Mrs Thatcher when she wondered why the BBC needed so many people to set up one of her broadcasts.
Newsnight has taken to having the studio presenters do their own makeup, which means those who are skilled at makeup (female presenters) look good whereas those who are not (male presenters) look ill. Nick Watt really needs to learn how to use a powder brush!
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
Sigh - that was in the context of an extreme hypothetical - quite common in Operational Research. You ask - if we take X to an extreme, what is the result Y.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
That all sounds very complicated and somewhat hypothetical. Surely its simpler just to delude yourself into thinking that Cummings is just a (lucky) idiot?
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Not if there is no demand. Personally I would be stripping seats out of my planes and focusing on freight for the foreseeable.
Real cargo versions of planes require extensive work - will there really be a massive increase in air freight?
Indeed. Removing interiors might save some weight, but the cargo will still have to go in the usual place as the cabin floor can't take that much weight nor secure the load. Plenty of room in aircraft like 777s though, they have massive holds and use containerised storage.
I can't see huge volumes of extra air freight, but there will definitely be an increase in time-critical shipments of food and medical supplies for the next few months.
How can renewable energy stay profitable if oil keeps dumping?
It is the capital cost that is the issue with alternative energy, so no new windmills will be built. But those that already exist will continue to turn because there is close to zero marginal cost of production.
More optimistically, an example of catastrophic market failure will finally get the world to introduce a carbon tax, which should be a no-brainer anyway.
Unfortunately, with the most dangerous criminal organisation in history running the most powerful country in the world, it's hard to be optimistic.
I agree. How do we solve a problem like China?
Only by coordinated global action with the US, India, EU, UK, Brazil, Australia, Japan all working together to hold China to account.
It has less than a fifth of the global population and economy.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
Is there constant discussion on that? AFAIK we have fallen well behind Italy's pace.
How can renewable energy stay profitable if oil keeps dumping?
It is the capital cost that is the issue with alternative energy, so no new windmills will be built. But those that already exist will continue to turn because there is close to zero marginal cost of production.
More optimistically, an example of catastrophic market failure will finally get the world to introduce a carbon tax, which should be a no-brainer anyway.
Unfortunately, with the most dangerous criminal organisation in history running the most powerful country in the world, it's hard to be optimistic.
I agree. How do we solve a problem like China?
Only by coordinated global action with the US, India, EU, UK, Brazil, Australia, Japan all working together to hold China to account.
It has less than a fifth of the global population and economy.
It’s not omnipotent.
That interview clip between one of the Hong Kong news programmes and the WHO was eye-popping though
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Or commercial property, specifically office blocks, if WFH continues?
Though I suspect teleconferences waste more time than face-to-face meetings simply because they are so easy to set up. Some managers here seem to spend their entire working days on one webex meeting or conference call after another.
There will come a time (possibly not too far away) when I’d prefer to take my chances with Covid19 - even at risk to my own life - than spend one more day locked down inside my house.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
I've been noticing these numbers for a while and been increasingly perplexed by the alleged north/south divide. I simply don't see it.
Its similar to this theory that the great British summer is somehow going to help. So far this virus seems to be doing quite well in 199 different countries, many with much hotter climates than we will ever see given that global warming may have been cancelled.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
Sigh - that was in the context of an extreme hypothetical - quite common in Operational Research. You ask - if we take X to an extreme, what is the result Y.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
That all sounds very complicated and somewhat hypothetical. Surely its simpler just to delude yourself into thinking that Cummings is just a (lucky) idiot?
So your saying that someone asking a *question* as standard part of Operations Research is evidence of idiocy? That says quite a lot about..... someone.
Yes, it is a hypothetical - the extreme end of the graph. Why subsidise agriculture? What do we as a nation get out of it? That way, you work out what it costs and what you get.
The other alternative is policy making by sacred cows - Can I have some battleships, please? They are nice and large, pretty and great for battles like Jutland.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
Is there constant discussion on that? AFAIK we have fallen well behind Italy's pace.
Whatever happened to that Uk vs Italy “14 days” table ?
There will come a time (possibly not too far away) when I’d prefer to take my chances with Covid19 - even at risk to my own life - than spend one more day locked down inside my house.
It’s no life.
So you wouldn't care if you got infected and passed it on to someone else?
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Not if there is no demand. Personally I would be stripping seats out of my planes and focusing on freight for the foreseeable.
Real cargo versions of planes require extensive work - will there really be a massive increase in air freight?
Indeed. Removing interiors might save some weight, but the cargo will still have to go in the usual place as the cabin floor can't take that much weight nor secure the load. Plenty of room in aircraft like 777s though, they have massive holds and use containerised storage.
I can't see huge volumes of extra air freight, but there will definitely be an increase in time-critical shipments of food and medical supplies for the next few months.
Without proper offload/onload, such "conversions" are a waste of time.
That was found out, long ago in the Berlin Airlift.
It would probably be cheaper to pull cargo planes out of the mothball boneyards in Arizona.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
I've been noticing these numbers for a while and been increasingly perplexed by the alleged north/south divide. I simply don't see it.
Its similar to this theory that the great British summer is somehow going to help. So far this virus seems to be doing quite well in 199 different countries, many with much hotter climates than we will ever see given that global warming may have been cancelled.
Yep, for a while it looked like all the cases over here (temps in the high 20s at the moment) were imported, and there was no local spreading happening. But then a couple of people got sick and carried on life as usual, and so we're now all locked down and curfewed the same as everywhere else. 500 cases in a 10m population, although thankfully a very young population.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Spending four, six, eight grand to fly for business - and even worse, conferences - is a thing of the past.
I, too, see positives emerging from this. I'm hoping it's an opportunity for re-configuration. The capitalist greed of the world economy which has sought to suck the life out of Mother Nature is being taught a long and very painful karmic lesson.
I also see re-configuration in our personal lives. People are networking in new ways and finding different opportunities to be resourceful. They are also facing up to death: the possibility that it might strike is not something most people consider. Learning a little humility in the face of our mortality is not always a bad thing.
The mighty are being laid low.
I would not be bothered if Covid-19 carried me off. I feel like I have had more than enough of the world already.
Bev - do you have friends and family you can talk to?
Things are not great for sure but they will improve and life for most will go on and lots of people will learn to really appreciate things again rather than taking them for granted.
There will come a time (possibly not too far away) when I’d prefer to take my chances with Covid19 - even at risk to my own life - than spend one more day locked down inside my house.
It’s no life.
So you wouldn't care if you got infected and passed it on to someone else?
It's almost as if the experts were right about the psychological limitations of a lock in.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Sorry, Robert, but this sounds like denial to me. None of your 3 really come close to the magnitude of this pandemic crisis.
There's only one way to halt this virus. A vaccine. Until we get one it will kill millions.
It seems to be possible for South Korea to contain the growth of the thing even now, with hardly any time to respond and while we know very little about it. Why do you assume it's impossible for other developed countries to do it with more time and more information?
As I understand it, all they are doing is flattening the peaks which will continue to come in waves until we get a vaccine. The virus will move through 80% of the world's population.
I'm sorry, but if no more that 5% of your population has the virus at any time, then you have won. Sure, you'll have 10-30,000 excess deaths, and a nasty recession. But all that proves is how lucky we are. The worst pandemic in memory and it was unpleasant.
But if the only way to maintain that level of no more than 5% is through semi permanent lockdown and a collapse in the economic base of the country then in the end more people will die of the cure than the disease. It is at best a pyrrhic victory.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
Sigh - that was in the context of an extreme hypothetical - quite common in Operational Research. You ask - if we take X to an extreme, what is the result Y.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
That all sounds very complicated and somewhat hypothetical. Surely its simpler just to delude yourself into thinking that Cummings is just a (lucky) idiot?
So your saying that someone asking a *question* as standard part of Operations Research is evidence of idiocy? That says quite a lot about..... someone.
Yes, it is a hypothetical - the extreme end of the graph. Why subsidise agriculture? What do we as a nation get out of it? That way, you work out what it costs and what you get.
The other alternative is policy making by sacred cows - Can I have some battleships, please? They are nice and large, pretty and great for battles like Jutland.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
Sweden is the one to follow - no lockdown.
If they show about the same number of cases / deaths then why bother with a lockdown.
There will come a time (possibly not too far away) when I’d prefer to take my chances with Covid19 - even at risk to my own life - than spend one more day locked down inside my house.
It’s no life.
This is not a personal criticism but it is not about "you". If people respond in this way the more vulnerable members of our society are at increased risk as the virus will have more vectors to facilitate spread.
I can sympathise with your state of mind, indeed I share it. I am lucky enough to live in a place where I can go for a fairly long walk each day with absolutely minimal proximity to anyone. Without that I would be going mad and I still miss meeting up with friends, going for coffee or lunch together, etc enormously. I have some written work to do but I find it incredibly hard to focus on it. My productivity has collapsed. I recognise precursors to depression in this.
It does suggest that the behavioural psychologists who argued that it was important that we didn't lock down too soon rather knew what they were talking about, doesn't it?
The gap between rhetoric and reality is a concern. It appears to be growing.
If press releases and tweets about tests or ventilators saved lives we would not have a problem.
The number of tests has always dipped on weekends. This weekend seems to have been no exception.
In addition, if you are increasing capacity, but the tests take time (which they do), there will be a lag between increased capacity and completed tests.
I, too, see positives emerging from this. I'm hoping it's an opportunity for re-configuration. The capitalist greed of the world economy which has sought to suck the life out of Mother Nature is being taught a long and very painful karmic lesson.
I also see re-configuration in our personal lives. People are networking in new ways and finding different opportunities to be resourceful. They are also facing up to death: the possibility that it might strike is not something most people consider. Learning a little humility in the face of our mortality is not always a bad thing.
The mighty are being laid low.
I would not be bothered if Covid-19 carried me off. I feel like I have had more than enough of the world already.
Bev - do you have friends and family you can talk to?
Things are not great for sure but they will improve and life for most will go on and lots of people will learn to really appreciate things again rather than taking them for granted.
Agreed - we face an indetermined period of this. Critical that we look after each other's mental health.
How can renewable energy stay profitable if oil keeps dumping?
It is the capital cost that is the issue with alternative energy, so no new windmills will be built. But those that already exist will continue to turn because there is close to zero marginal cost of production.
More optimistically, an example of catastrophic market failure will finally get the world to introduce a carbon tax, which should be a no-brainer anyway.
Unfortunately, with the most dangerous criminal organisation in history running the most powerful country in the world, it's hard to be optimistic.
I agree. How do we solve a problem like China?
Glad you agree that the US Republican party is the most dangerous organisation in history, and that we need a carbon tax. As for Chinese issues, If you mean by "we" the rest of the world outside China, then good leadership from the USA is also an essential factor.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
Sigh - that was in the context of an extreme hypothetical - quite common in Operational Research. You ask - if we take X to an extreme, what is the result Y.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
That all sounds very complicated and somewhat hypothetical. Surely its simpler just to delude yourself into thinking that Cummings is just a (lucky) idiot?
So your saying that someone asking a *question* as standard part of Operations Research is evidence of idiocy? That says quite a lot about..... someone.
Yes, it is a hypothetical - the extreme end of the graph. Why subsidise agriculture? What do we as a nation get out of it? That way, you work out what it costs and what you get.
The other alternative is policy making by sacred cows - Can I have some battleships, please? They are nice and large, pretty and great for battles like Jutland.
I think that you may have misunderstood my post. I was completely agreeing with you.
I, too, see positives emerging from this. I'm hoping it's an opportunity for re-configuration. The capitalist greed of the world economy which has sought to suck the life out of Mother Nature is being taught a long and very painful karmic lesson.
I also see re-configuration in our personal lives. People are networking in new ways and finding different opportunities to be resourceful. They are also facing up to death: the possibility that it might strike is not something most people consider. Learning a little humility in the face of our mortality is not always a bad thing.
The mighty are being laid low.
I would not be bothered if Covid-19 carried me off. I feel like I have had more than enough of the world already.
Bev - do you have friends and family you can talk to?
Things are not great for sure but they will improve and life for most will go on and lots of people will learn to really appreciate things again rather than taking them for granted.
Agreed - we face an indetermined period of this. Critical that we look after each other's mental health.
Hence the volunteer effort to phone people as a regular check up - that by itself could make a big difference.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Or commercial property, specifically office blocks, if WFH continues?
Though I suspect teleconferences waste more time than face-to-face meetings simply because they are so easy to set up. Some managers here seem to spend their entire working days on one webex meeting or conference call after another.
I suspect a lot of executives are going to realise that they have whole layers of middle managers who do nothing but sit in meetings all day and add little of value to the business.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
Sigh - that was in the context of an extreme hypothetical - quite common in Operational Research. You ask - if we take X to an extreme, what is the result Y.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
That all sounds very complicated and somewhat hypothetical. Surely its simpler just to delude yourself into thinking that Cummings is just a (lucky) idiot?
So your saying that someone asking a *question* as standard part of Operations Research is evidence of idiocy? That says quite a lot about..... someone.
Yes, it is a hypothetical - the extreme end of the graph. Why subsidise agriculture? What do we as a nation get out of it? That way, you work out what it costs and what you get.
The other alternative is policy making by sacred cows - Can I have some battleships, please? They are nice and large, pretty and great for battles like Jutland.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Spending four, six, eight grand to fly for business - and even worse, conferences - is a thing of the past.
And of those who do resume flying for business, considerably fewer will be turning left when they get on the plane.
The gap between rhetoric and reality is a concern. It appears to be growing.
If press releases and tweets about tests or ventilators saved lives we would not have a problem.
This doesn't appear to be a concern to me. I would prefer that they saved those 3000 tests for those who need them rather than go out and find 3000 people to test to make up the 10,000, interesting though that would be.
I wonder if there is actually a case for a 'poll' test? Would we be able to gage national levels of infection?
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
EiT may exaggerate, but the reality is that we can ameliorate the effect of CV-19, so long as we can do three things:
1. Lower the current number infected 2. Slow future outbreaks 3. Prevent it from being too fatal to those who catch it
The key to 1 is to ensure that the number of people "doing the infecting" is a small one. This means we lockdown for 4-6 weeks to result in few new infections, and lots of death or cure.
For 2, we use a combination of track and trace, enforced masks, regular testing for people who come into contact with lots of people, prohibition on certain activities etc. The goal is here is to lower R0 below 1, so that while CV-19 is not be eliminated, it cannot infect in an out of control manner.
And 3 is a matter of having enough ventilators, and improving our treatment regimes.
None of these are easy. 1 and 2, in particular, are extremely expensive.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Isn’t the problem with all this the international nature of COVID-19? Even if we do a fantastic job at containing and reducing it, if another country screws up then we will simply end up importing their cases.
I think international travel is going to come to a complete stop for many months, and anyone entering a different country is going to face mandatory testing and quarantine. Once people start moving around, it only takes one imported case to set the whole thing off again.
The airline industry needs to find a model which allows them to pay people to fly. A lot.
The whole industry is completely screwed by this, even when we recover it could take years for international travel to get back to previous levels, if it even does at all. Many companies and individuals are finding that teleconferences work almost as well as meetings, and are much cheaper than travelling.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
Or commercial property, specifically office blocks, if WFH continues?
Though I suspect teleconferences waste more time than face-to-face meetings simply because they are so easy to set up. Some managers here seem to spend their entire working days on one webex meeting or conference call after another.
I suspect a lot of executives are going to realise that they have whole layers of middle managers who do nothing but sit in meetings all day and add little of value to the business.
They already know this - the generalist managers are being binned en mass, before this crisis.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
I've been noticing these numbers for a while and been increasingly perplexed by the alleged north/south divide. I simply don't see it.
Its similar to this theory that the great British summer is somehow going to help. So far this virus seems to be doing quite well in 199 different countries, many with much hotter climates than we will ever see given that global warming may have been cancelled.
I don't think we know what effect the summer would have either way. For example it may be that the virus transmits easily indoors in closed, air-conditioned spaces that you' typically use in hot countries, but not so much in Britain, where it's mostly not hot enough to put in air conditoning and you have to open the windows.
I can't work out if we're going to have rampant deflation or rampant inflation from this. I think house prices could take a hit mind.
Who knows. But I reckon it will be inflation.
There's almost no velocity of money now though. Unless you're trying to buy PPE, inflation needs to have a large velocity of money and that has almost stopped.
High unemployment + negative economic growth = downwards pressure on inflation, usually. Oil prices are also at recent lows, and as you say spending is grinding to a halt. The main upwards indicator right now is low interest rates, bu they were already pretty low to start with, so the minor cut shouldn't change much. The massive increase in government spending is mostly just replacing what would've been regular income. My vote is for deflation.
So those people who spent all weekend moving money out of their bank accounts are ahead of the game and writing mug on our foreheads for being slow to act on this? Moving it it to what though? What assets won’t depreciate? jewellery? Water?
Remember again there's someone still working in Downing Street who said Britain didn't really need its farms and fishing fleet.
Sigh - that was in the context of an extreme hypothetical - quite common in Operational Research. You ask - if we take X to an extreme, what is the result Y.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
If I recall correctly that was the Mossie, and de Havilland had to virtually build it themselves (full size mockup?) before the Air Ministry would order a single prototype.
I, too, see positives emerging from this. I'm hoping it's an opportunity for re-configuration. The capitalist greed of the world economy which has sought to suck the life out of Mother Nature is being taught a long and very painful karmic lesson.
I also see re-configuration in our personal lives. People are networking in new ways and finding different opportunities to be resourceful. They are also facing up to death: the possibility that it might strike is not something most people consider. Learning a little humility in the face of our mortality is not always a bad thing.
The mighty are being laid low.
I would not be bothered if Covid-19 carried me off. I feel like I have had more than enough of the world already.
Bev - do you have friends and family you can talk to?
Things are not great for sure but they will improve and life for most will go on and lots of people will learn to really appreciate things again rather than taking them for granted.
Agreed - we face an indetermined period of this. Critical that we look after each other's mental health.
Hence the volunteer effort to phone people as a regular check up - that by itself could make a big difference.
I have set up an extended family WhatsApp group, to support some of the more isolated. Seems to have boosted morale somewhat.
In other news Next have offered to make scrubs for our hospital staff. We do not have enough for people to wear who are not theatre or ICU staff, and many staff are reluctant to wear own clothes as per uniform policy, and risk contaminating family and non work areas.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
I've been noticing these numbers for a while and been increasingly perplexed by the alleged north/south divide. I simply don't see it.
Its similar to this theory that the great British summer is somehow going to help. So far this virus seems to be doing quite well in 199 different countries, many with much hotter climates than we will ever see given that global warming may have been cancelled.
I don't think we know what effect the summer would have either way. For example it may be that the virus transmits easily indoors in closed, air-conditioned spaces that you' typically use in hot countries, but not so much in Britain, where it's mostly not hot enough to put in air conditoning and you have to open the windows.
There is an awful lot that we don't know about this virus but the idea that our ambient temperature changing from 5C to 15 or even 20C was somehow going to stop it in its tracks always seemed...optimistic.
I am really interested in your observations of Japan's situation. For some time they seemed to be similar to SK in being able to control this virus without wreaking the economy but as you point out after the Olympics was finally abandoned the evidence is a lot less supportive of that. How do you see this going?
I, too, see positives emerging from this. I'm hoping it's an opportunity for re-configuration. The capitalist greed of the world economy which has sought to suck the life out of Mother Nature is being taught a long and very painful karmic lesson.
I also see re-configuration in our personal lives. People are networking in new ways and finding different opportunities to be resourceful. They are also facing up to death: the possibility that it might strike is not something most people consider. Learning a little humility in the face of our mortality is not always a bad thing.
The mighty are being laid low.
I would not be bothered if Covid-19 carried me off. I feel like I have had more than enough of the world already.
Bev - do you have friends and family you can talk to?
Things are not great for sure but they will improve and life for most will go on and lots of people will learn to really appreciate things again rather than taking them for granted.
Agreed - we face an indetermined period of this. Critical that we look after each other's mental health.
Hence the volunteer effort to phone people as a regular check up - that by itself could make a big difference.
I have set up an extended family WhatsApp group, to support some of the more isolated. Seems to have boosted morale somewhat.
In other news Next have offered to make scrubs for our hospital staff. We do not have enough for people to wear who are not theatre or ICU staff, and many staff are reluctant to wear own clothes as per uniform policy, and risk contaminating family and non work areas.
Well done Next. Hope people are keeping a list of 'good' companies.
Mr. B, that's terrible to hear. Beyond corona itself, and the economic impact, there's going to be a significant degree of psychological difficulty to handle as well.
I am already suffering on that front Mr Dancer...
Personally, I can understand Herr Schafer's actions.
Herd immunity remains the only way to stop the virus, either through a vaccine or through sufficient numbers of people being infected. It's just a question of how you manage it over time.
I don't think that's true, plausibly you could have good, cheap testing and some enduring changes to reduce its spread (practiced normally, like we do for food hygiene) and effectively eliminate it, except for occasional clusters that would burn themselves out.
For an airborne disease, this is frankly bollocks.
But together they allow us to turn CV-19 from an @eadric-level crisis into a painful, but not existential. shock.
Sorry, Robert, but this sounds like denial to me. None of your 3 really come close to the magnitude of this pandemic crisis.
There's only one way to halt this virus. A vaccine. Until we get one it will kill millions.
It seems to be possible for South Korea to contain the growth of the thing even now, with hardly any time to respond and while we know very little about it. Why do you assume it's impossible for other developed countries to do it with more time and more information?
As I understand it, all they are doing is flattening the peaks which will continue to come in waves until we get a vaccine. The virus will move through 80% of the world's population.
I'm sorry, but if no more that 5% of your population has the virus at any time, then you have won. Sure, you'll have 10-30,000 excess deaths, and a nasty recession. But all that proves is how lucky we are. The worst pandemic in memory and it was unpleasant.
But if the only way to maintain that level of no more than 5% is through semi permanent lockdown and a collapse in the economic base of the country then in the end more people will die of the cure than the disease. It is at best a pyrrhic victory.
A while back some journalist offered a parallel with the Japanese Fukishima nuclear incident. A review afterwards identified that twenty people subsequently died of excess exposure to radiation, but about a thousand were killed in the hurriedly executed evacuation of the surrounding area, in road accidents, heart attacks, and other incidents directly arising from the response to the crisis.
I, too, see positives emerging from this. I'm hoping it's an opportunity for re-configuration. The capitalist greed of the world economy which has sought to suck the life out of Mother Nature is being taught a long and very painful karmic lesson.
I also see re-configuration in our personal lives. People are networking in new ways and finding different opportunities to be resourceful. They are also facing up to death: the possibility that it might strike is not something most people consider. Learning a little humility in the face of our mortality is not always a bad thing.
The mighty are being laid low.
I would not be bothered if Covid-19 carried me off. I feel like I have had more than enough of the world already.
Bev - do you have friends and family you can talk to?
Things are not great for sure but they will improve and life for most will go on and lots of people will learn to really appreciate things again rather than taking them for granted.
Agreed - we face an indetermined period of this. Critical that we look after each other's mental health.
Hence the volunteer effort to phone people as a regular check up - that by itself could make a big difference.
I have set up an extended family WhatsApp group, to support some of the more isolated. Seems to have boosted morale somewhat.
In other news Next have offered to make scrubs for our hospital staff. We do not have enough for people to wear who are not theatre or ICU staff, and many staff are reluctant to wear own clothes as per uniform policy, and risk contaminating family and non work areas.
That sounds like a good idea - neat way for them to recover their reputation a little.
Constant discussion about U.K. potentially being the next Italy/Spain etc, but what about Netherlands (and similar - Belgium). Some absolute horror numbers in areas of Europe which perhaps are going relatively in-noticed because smaller populations meaning smaller numbers of absolute cases. Netherlands, despite having a quarter of U.K. population have half U.K. cases and 2/3 of deaths. Belgium (1/6 population) has half U.K. cases and 1/3 deaths.
Sweden is the one to follow - no lockdown.
If they show about the same number of cases / deaths then why bother with a lockdown.
Yep. Sweden will be fascinating and could be really important.
Government officials and executives at rival ventilator companies said they suspected that Covidien had acquired Newport to prevent it from building a cheaper product that would undermine Covidien’s profits from its existing ventilator business.
Comments
There are several birthdays in my family in the next few weeks and I intend to raise a glass at all of them, even if we are only looking at each other through a computer screen!
And No 2 son has a significant order from a Chinese customer!
And what is more, here at any rate the sun is shining!
Mr. B, that's terrible to hear. Beyond corona itself, and the economic impact, there's going to be a significant degree of psychological difficulty to handle as well.
Sure, you'll have 10-30,000 excess deaths, and a nasty recession. But all that proves is how lucky we are. The worst pandemic in memory and it was unpleasant.
Hope, colleagues, hope!
Personally, I can understand Herr Schafer's actions.
When the disease is rampant (as it is now), you need to get R0 to 0.1 or 0.2.
You need to implement draconian measures - as we have done - to reduce the number of new infections to 20 to 50 per day. Italy is now on it's way to that. By the end of this week, the number of active cases will probably be in decline. Two weeks from that, six weeks into lockdown, new infections will be under 100 a day.
After this, you implement containment. The goal is to stop R0 frome being 3 again, and to ensure it's no more than 1.
So yes, people bring it. And yes, people get infected.
Think of this in human disease terms. We want CV-19 to be a chronic condition. We want it to be something society manages.
And yes, there are painful side effects from stopping people doing what they'd normally do. But they move it from a disease that kills you, to one that can be managed.
The whole point about a vaccine is that it "trains" your immune system to recognise the threat, so it attacks it immediately. And the greatest training your immune system can have is to have, you know, actually have the virus in the first place.
And that optimism will show itself in many ways. For one thing, people are going to come out of this demanding their politicians take more care of the world we live in. Of those who live here. It will be a better place. Be part of demanding that.
And those who have been locked away will be coming up with ideas. I can see there being a great outpouring of creativity after the lockdown ends.
And with all the money you have saved during the lockdown, treat yourself. Go online, find the most amazing shoe-maker - and have them make you THE most exquisitely comfortable yet OMG wonderful pair of shoes you have ever worn. Sure, it will spoil you for ever for off-the-shelf shop bought shoes. But that shoe-maker NEEDS YOU after this is over. Get them - and you - on their wonderful feet again. They will be your reminder of what you went through - and came out of the other side.
And then, there's the booting out of Trump to look forward to in November....
I think even within the UK, travel will be restricted. Visiting relatives maybe. But not for holidaying. Not until at least July would be my guess. Not until at least 14 days without a confirmed case.
Keep your chin up. This won’t last forever - even if it feels like it will right now.
Business as usual/normalcy bias won't be there when/if a second wave hits
So, it needs export earnings to be able to produce that food.
The humorous recommendation downthread that Beib_C should plan to spend her 'saving' on shoes makes the point. A lot of people will be chasing fewer shoes.
And if anyone has any doubts about that look at your daily Debenhams email.
In the case of farming - a large amount of money is spent on subsidy. What do we get for it? What would the landscape be, if we removed it?
A classic in this field was the study in WWII proposing to remove all defensive armament from RAF bombers. If you went all the way to redesigning the planes to not have the structural capability to carry the armament, then they would be 100mph faster and have half the crew. While not adopted, due to the politics of the matter, it is noteworthy that the Air Ministry dropped defensive armament for future designs.
I really wouldn't want to be an aircraft leasing company right now, nor a manufacturer of aircraft. There's going to be thousands of very cheap barely-used aircraft on the market soon, a great opportunity for someone to start up a new airline once the panic is all over.
It's a credit to them that they stepped up, and a shining example of how organisations that many consider to be engaged in trivial or even damaging activity can be very useful when applied in the real world.
I had a flurry of work a couple of weeks ago setting up WFH tools, but it's now completely dead bar the odd support call, with no idea when it's going to improve.
Well, with that settled, where's my bog roll?
Thankfully last years holidays were large so I don't need to repeat them again for a while and this year's is only a trip to Cornwall to do tourist things and see friends.
I can't see huge volumes of extra air freight, but there will definitely be an increase in time-critical shipments of food and medical supplies for the next few months.
It has less than a fifth of the global population and economy.
It’s not omnipotent.
Though I suspect teleconferences waste more time than face-to-face meetings simply because they are so easy to set up. Some managers here seem to spend their entire working days on one webex meeting or conference call after another.
There will come a time (possibly not too far away) when I’d prefer to take my chances with Covid19 - even at risk to my own life - than spend one more day locked down inside my house.
It’s no life.
Its similar to this theory that the great British summer is somehow going to help. So far this virus seems to be doing quite well in 199 different countries, many with much hotter climates than we will ever see given that global warming may have been cancelled.
Yes, it is a hypothetical - the extreme end of the graph. Why subsidise agriculture? What do we as a nation get out of it? That way, you work out what it costs and what you get.
The other alternative is policy making by sacred cows - Can I have some battleships, please? They are nice and large, pretty and great for battles like Jutland.
That was found out, long ago in the Berlin Airlift.
It would probably be cheaper to pull cargo planes out of the mothball boneyards in Arizona.
Things are not great for sure but they will improve and life for most will go on and lots of people will learn to really appreciate things again rather than taking them for granted.
If press releases and tweets about tests or ventilators saved lives we would not have a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
If they show about the same number of cases / deaths then why bother with a lockdown.
I can sympathise with your state of mind, indeed I share it. I am lucky enough to live in a place where I can go for a fairly long walk each day with absolutely minimal proximity to anyone. Without that I would be going mad and I still miss meeting up with friends, going for coffee or lunch together, etc enormously. I have some written work to do but I find it incredibly hard to focus on it. My productivity has collapsed. I recognise precursors to depression in this.
It does suggest that the behavioural psychologists who argued that it was important that we didn't lock down too soon rather knew what they were talking about, doesn't it?
In addition, if you are increasing capacity, but the tests take time (which they do), there will be a lag between increased capacity and completed tests.
As for Chinese issues, If you mean by "we" the rest of the world outside China, then good leadership from the USA is also an essential factor.
For example - to debate UBI.
We as a society - do we *ever* cut off benefits and leave people to starve?
If not, then we always have to give them something (food/money).
etc etc.
I demand battleships! I want my shiny toys!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqNE41S3vs0&list=PLLcayDZ_ypeCdH5oegnggNh-7YUMtx8eT
I wonder if there is actually a case for a 'poll' test? Would we be able to gage national levels of infection?
In other news Next have offered to make scrubs for our hospital staff. We do not have enough for people to wear who are not theatre or ICU staff, and many staff are reluctant to wear own clothes as per uniform policy, and risk contaminating family and non work areas.
I am really interested in your observations of Japan's situation. For some time they seemed to be similar to SK in being able to control this virus without wreaking the economy but as you point out after the Olympics was finally abandoned the evidence is a lot less supportive of that. How do you see this going?
Stay here and chat, if it helps.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/business/coronavirus-us-ventilator-shortage.html