On the great bimbo question. The only person my former partner used the term against ( and she was a friend) was a former head girl of her prestigious school, had a degree in Politics from Essex, and was a children's social worker. But she did look like Barbie.
The idea that Chinese efforts to cover it up (whether by local, or central government) succeeded in doing so, is just not tenable.
Hang on, they were warning in November? Just how long have people known this thing was a runaway thing? Wasn't Patient Zero suppposd to have been tracked to December? Clearly not..... And how did they know - a direct source in the Wuhan labs?
"Intelligence was reportedly obtained through wire and computer intercepts along with satellite images showing the new disease was not under control in China."
With food prices rocketing, inflation is going to be an alarming reality even with oil currently worth less than Jennie Formby’s pledges on antisemitism.
Whoever edits the Wikipedia page for the Democratic primaries must be a fanatical Bernie supporter because they're refusing to put him into the "suspended campaign" category.
Everyone edits Wikipedia pages! Although I do see it was changed earlier to show him withdrawn, but changed back by a user styling themself "brojam" which may give a clue as to where they are coming from. No doubt it'll be resolved fairly soon.
On the great bimbo question. The only person my former partner used the term against ( and she was a friend) was a former head girl of her prestigious school, had a degree in Politics from Essex, and was a children's social worker. But she did look like Barbie.
Priti Patel has a degree in Politics from Essex. Wasn't her, was it?
The idea that Chinese efforts to cover it up (whether by local, or central government) succeeded in doing so, is just not tenable.
Hang on, they were warning in November? Just how long have people known this thing was a runaway thing? Wasn't Patient Zero suppposd to have been tracked to December? Clearly not..... And how did they know - a direct source in the Wuhan labs?
I'm not privy to US intelligence (assuming such a thing exists), but given that the US had been helping fund work at the lab in Wuhan (on pandemic research) for a number of years*, then no doubt they had contacts.
*until Trump/Bolton cut the whole international program last year.
The idea that Chinese efforts to cover it up (whether by local, or central government) succeeded in doing so, is just not tenable.
Hang on, they were warning in November? Just how long have people known this thing was a runaway thing? Wasn't Patient Zero suppposd to have been tracked to December? Clearly not..... And how did they know - a direct source in the Wuhan labs?
Remember there is a lot of covert parapsychology research funded by the US intelligence services.
Journalists wouldn't report these things if they weren't true.
My point was, as you note yourself, it’s a sexist stereotype. Which I wasn’t expecting from you.
I am actually (and I'm being serious) very gratified that you have me down as a non user of sexist stereotype. And it's true. I'm not. And I don't think I am doing so here. I've had a bash at explaining in my previous post. I think it's a careful and acceptable use of the word in this Trump context. Fingers crossed you agree when you mull it over.
No. I do not agree with you.
It may be an error made in good faith - as I say, you are not somebody I’ve ever seen use a negative stereotype in any context before - but it’s still an error.
It was me who initially picked Kinabalu up on this. Just to be clear, I`m not for banning words and don`t see bimbo as being necessarily derogative - I was just surprised (not disappointed) to hear kinabalu use it.
It may be an error made in good faith - as I say, you are not somebody I’ve ever seen use a negative stereotype in any context before - but it’s still an error.
Your dislike for the word speaks well of you. It's not one to bandy about. But in this case it was the precise word that I wanted. So not an error in that sense.
But, you know, and as always, the river of debate flows and we move on.
On the great bimbo question. The only person my former partner used the term against ( and she was a friend) was a former head girl of her prestigious school, had a degree in Politics from Essex, and was a children's social worker. But she did look like Barbie.
Priti Patel has a degree in Politics from Essex. Wasn't her, was it?
Definitely not - bimbos have to be blond don't they?
Have they today changed the heading of a graph from "Hospital admissions" to "Number in hospital beds".
But the graph is the same graph as on previous days!
ie Previously the graph was misdescribed - there weren't necessarily increasing numbers of admissions.
(Assuming you define admissions as admissions on that day).
I think there were two graphs. New admissions but also the number in critical care beds. On the latter, I thought it looked quite promising, especially in London.
On the great bimbo question. The only person my former partner used the term against ( and she was a friend) was a former head girl of her prestigious school, had a degree in Politics from Essex, and was a children's social worker. But she did look like Barbie.
Priti Patel has a degree in Politics from Essex. Wasn't her, was it?
Definitely not - bimbos have to be blond don't they?
Sunak is making a tactical mistake in going back to the journalists to check if their q. has been answered... just gives them another bite of the cherry.
Good grief, can we ditch the political journos at these daily pressers and have some science correspondants?
They shame journalism
When this is all over, they will then spend years heaping shit on the government for every single mistake made (and there will be plenty) and present it such that they knew all along that the government were wrong.
Whoever edits the Wikipedia page for the Democratic primaries must be a fanatical Bernie supporter because they're refusing to put him into the "suspended campaign" category.
Everyone edits Wikipedia pages! Although I do see it was changed earlier to show him withdrawn, but changed back by a user styling themself "brojam" which may give a clue as to where they are coming from. No doubt it'll be resolved fairly soon.
On the great bimbo question. The only person my former partner used the term against ( and she was a friend) was a former head girl of her prestigious school, had a degree in Politics from Essex, and was a children's social worker. But she did look like Barbie.
Priti Patel has a degree in Politics from Essex. Wasn't her, was it?
Definitely not - bimbos have to be blond don't they?
Well - kinabalu`s your man for this obviously - I`d say a bimbo is a person (not necessarily female) who is regarded extremely favourably sex-wise yet is not renowned for his/her intellect. So doesn`t HAVE to be blond.
Sunak is making a tactical mistake in going back to the journalists to check if their q. has been answered... just gives them another bite of the cherry.
Send out Jonathan Van Tam...none of them want him to correct them a second time.
Have they today changed the heading of a graph from "Hospital admissions" to "Number in hospital beds".
But the graph is the same graph as on previous days!
ie Previously the graph was misdescribed - there weren't necessarily increasing numbers of admissions.
(Assuming you define admissions as admissions on that day).
I think there were two graphs. New admissions but also the number in critical care beds. On the latter, I thought it looked quite promising, especially in London.
No, the first graph is now headed "Number in hospital beds".
Graph after that is "Number in critical care beds".
No graph for admissions. Pretty obvious previous days' graphs was misheaded (or word admissions open to misunderstanding).
Good grief, can we ditch the political journos at these daily pressers and have some science correspondants?
They shame journalism
When this is all over, they will then spend years heaping shit on the government for every single mistake made (and there will be plenty) and present it such that they knew all along that the government were wrong.
rather like they spent the best part of 4 years heaping shit on the government and presented it that Brexit was never going to happen, the 2019 election was a mistake
rather like they spent the best part of the 5 years before that heaping shit on the coalition etc
Have they today changed the heading of a graph from "Hospital admissions" to "Number in hospital beds".
But the graph is the same graph as on previous days!
ie Previously the graph was misdescribed - there weren't necessarily increasing numbers of admissions.
(Assuming you define admissions as admissions on that day).
I think there were two graphs. New admissions but also the number in critical care beds. On the latter, I thought it looked quite promising, especially in London.
No, the first graph is now headed "Number in hospital beds".
Graph after that is "Number in critical care beds".
No graph for admissions. Pretty obvious previous days' graphs was misheaded (or word admissions open to misunderstanding).
You're right! That does make a difference in the interpretation.
The idea that Chinese efforts to cover it up (whether by local, or central government) succeeded in doing so, is just not tenable.
November? November? November? November? November?
Read the whole article and draw your own conclusions. Intelligence was reportedly obtained through wire and computer intercepts along with satellite images showing the new disease was not under control in China...
I have no idea if it's true or not, but neither China not the administration look good if it is. The Hill is normally pretty generous towards Trump, FWIW.
And even if they could promise that, what would that even mean? Would 9.9% be fine but 10.1% pushes us into disaster territory?
I'm as bored as anyone of a 'let's moan about journalists' session, but would it have been so hard to reframe the question a little at least, like 'Do you believe your measures will be enough to keep unemployment below 10%? What actions might you take if they do not?'
It might not be answered, might not even be reasonable, but it feels better worded.
And I'm not expert on clear communication even - I had to redo a concluding point in a report recently where for some reason my brain had decided to frame it as a triple negative.
Sunak is making a tactical mistake in going back to the journalists to check if their q. has been answered... just gives them another bite of the cherry.
I disagree. Gove did this too at the weekend, and it gave a favourable impression.
It doesn't really matter how silly questions are - if you're confident in what you have to communicate, it's just an opportunity.
The idea that Chinese efforts to cover it up (whether by local, or central government) succeeded in doing so, is just not tenable.
November? November? November? November? November?
Read the whole article and draw your own conclusions. Intelligence was reportedly obtained through wire and computer intercepts along with satellite images showing the new disease was not under control in China...
I have no idea if it's true or not, but neither China not the administration look good if it is. The Hill is normally pretty generous towards Trump, FWIW.
If the US intelligence agencies can detect coronavirus infections by satellite, it's a shame they didn't detect the ones in the USA a bit earlier!
They have a duty to inform us. A lot of self-employed people don't know how to navigate the government's bailouts, and a lot of vulnerable people don't know what to do if there's problems with their energy suppliers, don't know how to get medicines, don't know how to get shopping, don't know who to talk to if they're just lonely, or not well physically, or not well mentally, or how to access social work, or what support is available if they're subject to domestic abuse, or even if they can get to a shelter......Journalists could be helping to inform us with all that stuff. A nice, simple, central hub.
For example - has anyone seen anything in-depth covering the take up on the furlough scheme, problem, issues? Likewise for the self employed scheme?
As I read the info, the self-employed don't need to do anything for their version of the furlough - if they appear eligible, HMRC will contact them "at the latest by June". Getting support to manage until then is clearly an issue, as is certainty as to whether you'll really get it or be tripped up by the fine print.
Help with the other issues is available online, but most of the help that people need (even "where do I start to look?" is being provided by County Councils and borough councils - as well as voluntary organisations like Age Concern.Here in Surrey it's working fairly well so far in terms of responsiveness, as far as I can tell, but the Government lists of severely vulnerable people to contact are coming through in dribs and drabs for reasons that we don't understand.
Our borough council staff are now systematically ringing everyone on the lists to ask what help they need, but it's a slow process with calls lasting half an hour on average, with 11 people doing the calls for 1200 residents. The worry is the people who don't answer the phone and are maybe sitting there wondering what to do. Our primary request is for anyone who knows anyone very vulneralbe who might be confused and uncertain, to put them in touch with the help agencies.
It's an unpleasant word, both in sound and sense, but it's also a clear and concise way of describing something that actually exists in the real world, and especially in Trump's circle. Curtailing the range of expression doesn't curtail the existence of such persons, so I'm not sure why kinabalu's getting it in the neck, other than as a salutary lesson in the excesses of PC...
I think it is because I have such pristine woke credentials. So it's like hearing the vicar swear, as it were. But I stand by it. Or do I? Yes, I think so. Just this one time.
That provides a useful pointer to why the raw number of deaths is higher over the past five years to the five years before: we've got an ageing population. Quite a relief, really - we're supposed to be improving our mortality stats over time with better care and so on. The life expectancy figures have been improving, after all.
The covid-19 deaths are going to start turning up - about half the uptick for week 13 was dropping out the Christmas bank holiday (you can see the typical uptick in other years then); the rest is likely to be covid-19. When week 14 hits the data, it might start to get a little unpleasant.
Looking deeper, the deaths for age 85+ were low but not unusually so - I expect that to sadly change quite dramatically. Even the younger deaths will probably be discernable.
But as long as we flatten the curve sufficiently to avoid swamping the NHS, we should avoid a catastrophic spike. With the right steps taken, we can still keep the graph at least close to the normal range.
I had a look at the hospitalisation rates by age and compared it to the population pyramid.
Assuming significant asymptomatic infections, they reckon that the proportion of infectees needing hospitalisation climbs from 1% of 20-30 year olds, to 3.5% of 30-40, 4.3% of 40-50, up to 18.4% of 80+. (A lot lower than the headline rates, because assume that there are a big chunk of people who are asymptomatic and/or have very mild symptoms).
If 60-80% of people are infected, that means that 50,000-70,000 people in their twenties would need hospitalisation - and that's by far the smallest cohort. If you need hospitalisation and don't get it (because the NHS is overwhelmed), what proportion of those would die? (If you'd be fine without hospitalisation, then you don't need hospitalisation - sort of by definition).
Figures seem to indicate that younger people have the best chance of recovery with help - so we'd better make sure everyone gets as much help as they need.
Anyway - here's a graph of the sort of figures that would need hospitalisation if it ripped through the population and infected 60-80% immediately.
(Numbers are, of course, artificially precise - those are the projected hospitalisation rates per age band multiplied by the number of people in the UK in each age band, and 60% or 80% for the infection numbers. Should be rounded very loosely)
All these graphs should reinforce our intent to stick to the mitigation/suppression tactics. We can yet stop this from getting out of hand.
Have they today changed the heading of a graph from "Hospital admissions" to "Number in hospital beds".
But the graph is the same graph as on previous days!
ie Previously the graph was misdescribed - there weren't necessarily increasing numbers of admissions.
(Assuming you define admissions as admissions on that day).
Well, I was puzzled before by the fact that they added up to about 13,000!
Thats why trying to extrapolate is going to end in the stattos on here reassessing their forecasts..... The excuse that is informative does notb6hold water imho.
The idea that Chinese efforts to cover it up (whether by local, or central government) succeeded in doing so, is just not tenable.
Hang on, they were warning in November? Just how long have people known this thing was a runaway thing? Wasn't Patient Zero suppposd to have been tracked to December? Clearly not..... And how did they know - a direct source in the Wuhan labs?
So the US government has all along had its own view as to what has really been happening in China. I'm not surprised to see the NCMI mentioned, it seems that even before it was becoming a national issue in China it was already looking ominous to people in the US whose job it is to forecast pandemics.
Concerns about what is now known to be the novel coronavirus pandemic were detailed in a November intelligence report by the military's National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), according to two officials familiar with the document’s contents.
This is important as well.
The report was the result of analysis of wire and computer intercepts, coupled with satellite images. It raised alarms because an out-of-control disease would pose a serious threat to U.S. forces in Asia -- forces that depend on the NCMI’s work. And it paints a picture of an American government that could have ramped up mitigation and containment efforts far earlier to prepare for a crisis poised to come home.
As I've suspected the US had been privy to Chinese communications about the issue for a long time. Those 15 to 40 times figures that are bandied about almost certainly derive from signals intercepts of Chinese officials that don't match the story propograted by the central government. This intelligence is likely to be the source of UK scepticism as well.
Unbelievable - since this started everyone thought hospital admissions were going up when they may not have been - because graph was misheaded!
Will any of the clever journalists spot this?
Not yet!
I think it may be more likely today's graph is mislabelled.
Here is Neil Ferguson on 30 March: "If we look at the number of new hospital admissions per day for instance, that does appear to be slowing down a little bit now. It's not yet plateaued, so the numbers can be increasing each day, but the rate of increase has slowed." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52087452
I still don't understand why the total is so much higher than the number testing positive, though.
The idea that Chinese efforts to cover it up (whether by local, or central government) succeeded in doing so, is just not tenable.
November? November? November? November? November?
Read the whole article and draw your own conclusions. Intelligence was reportedly obtained through wire and computer intercepts along with satellite images showing the new disease was not under control in China...
I have no idea if it's true or not, but neither China not the administration look good if it is. The Hill is normally pretty generous towards Trump, FWIW.
If the US intelligence agencies can detect coronavirus infections by satellite, it's a shame they didn't detect the ones in the USA a bit earlier!
The satellite thing did puzzle me. But they have pretty good resolution, so if they decided to take a look on the basis of other intelligence, they'd pick up unusual vehicle movements etc ?
And her remark was idiotic. Just as many remarks by Burgon, or Francois, or Extinction Rebellion are idiotic. But I can criticise Burgon and Francois (and very often do) without resorting to comments about their appearance.
OK. I need to explain myself. You must have noticed that a disproportionate number of the women who end up in the Trump universe have this hyper-feminized Stepford appearance. So I'm using the word "bimbo" very precisely to describe the combination of that "Trumpy" look (for a woman) plus a certain vacuousness, based on the clip. Let me off?
Hmmm.
While there may well be something in Trump’s desire for women who are (a) decorative and (b) not an intellectual threat to him, I would suggest this was a poor choice of word. Not only is it designed to be offensive, but it carries overtones of sexual promiscuity as well.
Maybe. But what would be the appropriate word for a person who was decorative but not overbright, (a) male and (b) female? The concept exists.
They have a duty to inform us. A lot of self-employed people don't know how to navigate the government's bailouts, and a lot of vulnerable people don't know what to do if there's problems with their energy suppliers, don't know how to get medicines, don't know how to get shopping, don't know who to talk to if they're just lonely, or not well physically, or not well mentally, or how to access social work, or what support is available if they're subject to domestic abuse, or even if they can get to a shelter......Journalists could be helping to inform us with all that stuff. A nice, simple, central hub.
For example - has anyone seen anything in-depth covering the take up on the furlough scheme, problem, issues? Likewise for the self employed scheme?
As I read the info, the self-employed don't need to do anything for their version of the furlough - if they appear eligible, HMRC will contact them "at the latest by June". Getting support to manage until then is clearly an issue, as is certainty as to whether you'll really get it or be tripped up by the fine print.
Help with the other issues is available online, but most of the help that people need (even "where do I start to look?" is being provided by County Councils and borough councils - as well as voluntary organisations like Age Concern.Here in Surrey it's working fairly well so far in terms of responsiveness, as far as I can tell, but the Government lists of severely vulnerable people to contact are coming through in dribs and drabs for reasons that we don't understand.
Our borough council staff are now systematically ringing everyone on the lists to ask what help they need, but it's a slow process with calls lasting half an hour on average, with 11 people doing the calls for 1200 residents. The worry is the people who don't answer the phone and are maybe sitting there wondering what to do. Our primary request is for anyone who knows anyone very vulneralbe who might be confused and uncertain, to put them in touch with the help agencies.
That's more information than I have seen in the MSM. But I would really like some actual detailed information on what is happening.
Let's set up some awards for journalists with respect to Covid coverage.We can keep up a nomination short list and award when the worst is over. I suggest these for a start: 1. Most innumerate article or blog post. 2. Most stupid question. 3. Most self-serving individual. 4. Greatest negative impact.
Tories interestingly favour extending the transition by the narrowest of margins, Leavers still opposed to extension though
I'm all for them at least attempting to get it done in the existing timeframe, life hasn't completely stopped and they can see how far they can get, but it doesn't seem likely at all and hopefully the more strident will realise that. If my lockdown buddy is any indication only Boris will be able to get away with making that call.
Closure of the Jewish Chronicle is huge, and unfortunate, and I'd hope for a rescue. I'd noticed their co.uk address was not working while their .com address was but put it down to carelessness.
Good grief, can we ditch the political journos at these daily pressers and have some science correspondants?
In all seriousness I sort of get why they haven't, it's their job among colleagues to ask the questions of the top politicos, but it's not just politicians presenting these briefings and there are deeply technical matters to focus on as well, so at the least they should do it alongside (virtually) health or scientific correspondents with a bit more savvy about what to ask and understand what is said in return.
Thanks. I did eventually get through but only after selecting the Welsh language option....
They took my details and said someone will call back inside 4 hours. Got the windows open and a nice airflow coming through which might be helping a bit.
What would the benefit of paracetamol be?
To reduce any fever.
Are you finding it difficult to breathe at rest and have you any inhalers?
No inhalers. I'm a bit more comfortable now - if I have a temperature it means I'm fighting the virus no? Not sure I'd want to change that.
Glad you got on eventually - don't be reticent in pestering them if it takes more than 4 hours. Those of us without medical training had better not advise on paracetamol, but thr advice remains to call 999 if you have beathing difficulty. In the meantime, taking and holding several deep breaths, then having a vigorous cough, and then lying face down are supposed to be good.
Unbelievable - since this started everyone thought hospital admissions were going up when they may not have been - because graph was misheaded!
Will any of the clever journalists spot this?
Not yet!
I think it may be more likely today's graph is mislabelled.
Here is Neil Ferguson on 30 March: "If we look at the number of new hospital admissions per day for instance, that does appear to be slowing down a little bit now. It's not yet plateaued, so the numbers can be increasing each day, but the rate of increase has slowed." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52087452
I still don't understand why the total is so much higher than the number testing positive, though.
Not 100% certain, but I think today's graph is correct.
As Angela talked over the slide she referred to numbers in beds and talked about people moving through the system (my words, not hers).
Let's set up some awards for journalists with respect to Covid coverage.We can keep up a nomination short list and award when the worst is over. I suggest these for a start: 1. Most innumerate article or blog post. 2. Most stupid question. 3. Most self-serving individual. 4. Greatest negative impact.
Sounds like a good idea - it's going to be tough to pick winners with so much competition though.
I can't say too much but there is certainly a lot of work going on behind the scenes to prepare for the furlough payments. It's the sort of change that the civil service would usually manage over a year so one month is a tall order. We'll see how it goes.
Unbelievable - since this started everyone thought hospital admissions were going up when they may not have been - because graph was misheaded!
Will any of the clever journalists spot this?
Not yet!
I think it may be more likely today's graph is mislabelled.
Here is Neil Ferguson on 30 March: "If we look at the number of new hospital admissions per day for instance, that does appear to be slowing down a little bit now. It's not yet plateaued, so the numbers can be increasing each day, but the rate of increase has slowed." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52087452
But no - I don't think 4k admissions per day in London and only 1250 in critical care makes sense.
Very notable relabeling of the graph today to show that what was previously shown as 'admissions' by day is actually total current patient numbers by day - suggests peak admissions happened a fair few days ago and the picture is rather brighter than the previous mislabeling suggested.
If the US intelligence agencies can detect coronavirus infections by satellite, it's a shame they didn't detect the ones in the USA a bit earlier!
Intelligence agencies can do things like look at Chinese databases for records being added for things like purchase orders, inventory in warehouses, factory production, staffing levels, vehicle movement, as well as things like intercepting emails and messages.
If the Chinese government says the rate of tests/infections/deaths is X, but the the data the US is seeing looks more appropriate for something like 5, 10, or 20 times X then it would be right to question whether the Chinese goverment is telling the truth.
I can't say too much but there is certainly a lot of work going on behind the scenes to prepare for the furlough payments. It's the sort of change that the civil service would usually manage over a year so one month is a tall order. We'll see how it goes.
Fingers crossed. Not that this isn't super rushed and difficult, but sometimes the slow grind of preparation and approval for things can be counter productive, and an emergent situation can kick start something that actually works pretty well. Here's hoping.
And her remark was idiotic. Just as many remarks by Burgon, or Francois, or Extinction Rebellion are idiotic. But I can criticise Burgon and Francois (and very often do) without resorting to comments about their appearance.
OK. I need to explain myself. You must have noticed that a disproportionate number of the women who end up in the Trump universe have this hyper-feminized Stepford appearance. So I'm using the word "bimbo" very precisely to describe the combination of that "Trumpy" look (for a woman) plus a certain vacuousness, based on the clip. Let me off?
Hmmm.
While there may well be something in Trump’s desire for women who are (a) decorative and (b) not an intellectual threat to him, I would suggest this was a poor choice of word. Not only is it designed to be offensive, but it carries overtones of sexual promiscuity as well.
Maybe. But what would be the appropriate word for a person who was decorative but not overbright, (a) male and (b) female? The concept exists.
Unbelievable - since this started everyone thought hospital admissions were going up when they may not have been - because graph was misheaded!
Will any of the clever journalists spot this?
Not yet!
I think it may be more likely today's graph is mislabelled.
Here is Neil Ferguson on 30 March: "If we look at the number of new hospital admissions per day for instance, that does appear to be slowing down a little bit now. It's not yet plateaued, so the numbers can be increasing each day, but the rate of increase has slowed." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52087452
But no - I don't think 4k admissions per day in London and only 1250 in critical care makes sense.
Yeah - that makes me agree with @MikeL that it has been mislabelled previously. in particular, with that many new admissions per day how could the number of people in critical care (in London at least) be declining?
Unbelievable - since this started everyone thought hospital admissions were going up when they may not have been - because graph was misheaded!
Will any of the clever journalists spot this?
Not yet!
I think it may be more likely today's graph is mislabelled.
Here is Neil Ferguson on 30 March: "If we look at the number of new hospital admissions per day for instance, that does appear to be slowing down a little bit now. It's not yet plateaued, so the numbers can be increasing each day, but the rate of increase has slowed." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52087452
I still don't understand why the total is so much higher than the number testing positive, though.
Not 100% certain, but I think today's graph is correct.
As Angela talked over the slide she referred to numbers in beds and talked about people moving through the system (my words, not hers).
Yes - so "Hospital Admissions" and "hospitalisations" would have been completely wrong as descriptions. It would be cumulative admissions minus cumulative discharges.
Comments
He thinks Joe Biden will last a term?
Mind you, most of us wondered about Trump and he is unfortunately still in post.
Essentially the number of new cases per day is just 40% of however many people they are testing. Not very informative.
Nice thread
https://twitter.com/actuarybyday/status/1247916699741040641?s=21
*until Trump/Bolton cut the whole international program last year.
Journalists wouldn't report these things if they weren't true.
November?
November?
November?
November?
Active cases: 95,262 (+1.195) incluiding 3,693 in ICU (-99)
Deaths: 542 new for a total of 17,669
Healed/discharged: 2,099 new for a total of 26,491
New cases: + 3,836. Total 139,422
But the graph is the same graph as on previous days!
ie Previously the graph was misdescribed - there weren't necessarily increasing numbers of admissions.
(Assuming you define admissions as admissions on that day).
But, you know, and as always, the river of debate flows and we move on.
Edit: Here it is: https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1247921159397654528/photo/1
The good thing is that the respondents are in a different professional league and provide sensible responses to the most absurd questions
Graph after that is "Number in critical care beds".
No graph for admissions. Pretty obvious previous days' graphs was misheaded (or word admissions open to misunderstanding).
rather like they spent the best part of the 5 years before that heaping shit on the coalition etc
etc
et
cet
er
a
How idiotic is that?
Intelligence was reportedly obtained through wire and computer intercepts along with satellite images showing the new disease was not under control in China...
I have no idea if it's true or not, but neither China not the administration look good if it is. The Hill is normally pretty generous towards Trump, FWIW.
Jesus wept.
I'm as bored as anyone of a 'let's moan about journalists' session, but would it have been so hard to reframe the question a little at least, like 'Do you believe your measures will be enough to keep unemployment below 10%? What actions might you take if they do not?'
It might not be answered, might not even be reasonable, but it feels better worded.
And I'm not expert on clear communication even - I had to redo a concluding point in a report recently where for some reason my brain had decided to frame it as a triple negative.
It doesn't really matter how silly questions are - if you're confident in what you have to communicate, it's just an opportunity.
Will any of the clever journalists spot this?
Not yet!
Help with the other issues is available online, but most of the help that people need (even "where do I start to look?" is being provided by County Councils and borough councils - as well as voluntary organisations like Age Concern.Here in Surrey it's working fairly well so far in terms of responsiveness, as far as I can tell, but the Government lists of severely vulnerable people to contact are coming through in dribs and drabs for reasons that we don't understand.
Our borough council staff are now systematically ringing everyone on the lists to ask what help they need, but it's a slow process with calls lasting half an hour on average, with 11 people doing the calls for 1200 residents. The worry is the people who don't answer the phone and are maybe sitting there wondering what to do. Our primary request is for anyone who knows anyone very vulneralbe who might be confused and uncertain, to put them in touch with the help agencies.
The covid-19 deaths are going to start turning up - about half the uptick for week 13 was dropping out the Christmas bank holiday (you can see the typical uptick in other years then); the rest is likely to be covid-19. When week 14 hits the data, it might start to get a little unpleasant.
Looking deeper, the deaths for age 85+ were low but not unusually so - I expect that to sadly change quite dramatically. Even the younger deaths will probably be discernable.
But as long as we flatten the curve sufficiently to avoid swamping the NHS, we should avoid a catastrophic spike. With the right steps taken, we can still keep the graph at least close to the normal range.
I had a look at the hospitalisation rates by age and compared it to the population pyramid.
Assuming significant asymptomatic infections, they reckon that the proportion of infectees needing hospitalisation climbs from 1% of 20-30 year olds, to 3.5% of 30-40, 4.3% of 40-50, up to 18.4% of 80+.
(A lot lower than the headline rates, because assume that there are a big chunk of people who are asymptomatic and/or have very mild symptoms).
If 60-80% of people are infected, that means that 50,000-70,000 people in their twenties would need hospitalisation - and that's by far the smallest cohort. If you need hospitalisation and don't get it (because the NHS is overwhelmed), what proportion of those would die? (If you'd be fine without hospitalisation, then you don't need hospitalisation - sort of by definition).
Figures seem to indicate that younger people have the best chance of recovery with help - so we'd better make sure everyone gets as much help as they need.
Anyway - here's a graph of the sort of figures that would need hospitalisation if it ripped through the population and infected 60-80% immediately.
(Numbers are, of course, artificially precise - those are the projected hospitalisation rates per age band multiplied by the number of people in the UK in each age band, and 60% or 80% for the infection numbers. Should be rounded very loosely)
All these graphs should reinforce our intent to stick to the mitigation/suppression tactics. We can yet stop this from getting out of hand.
This is important as well.
As I've suspected the US had been privy to Chinese communications about the issue for a long time. Those 15 to 40 times figures that are bandied about almost certainly derive from signals intercepts of Chinese officials that don't match the story propograted by the central government. This intelligence is likely to be the source of UK scepticism as well.
Here is Neil Ferguson on 30 March:
"If we look at the number of new hospital admissions per day for instance, that does appear to be slowing down a little bit now. It's not yet plateaued, so the numbers can be increasing each day, but the rate of increase has slowed."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52087452
I still don't understand why the total is so much higher than the number testing positive, though.
for a start:
1. Most innumerate article or blog post.
2. Most stupid question.
3. Most self-serving individual.
4. Greatest negative impact.
All the best, and do keep us posted.
As Angela talked over the slide she referred to numbers in beds and talked about people moving through the system (my words, not hers).
If the Chinese government says the rate of tests/infections/deaths is X, but the the data the US is seeing looks more appropriate for something like 5, 10, or 20 times X then it would be right to question whether the Chinese goverment is telling the truth.
If the govt really want a very hard Brexit better to do it now than hit the economy again when it is starting to recover in 12-36 months time.
Jesus wept.
Now, now - they're missing their mates!