When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
That’s why saying 1% of New York dying from it shouldn’t be taken as meaning the death rate is 1% in my opinion, esp when you add in pollution.
Well, the death rate there is currently 0.1%, which does mean 0.1% of NY has died of it. If one in a hundred New Yorkers, regardless of where they live in New York, have died, then 1% of New Yorkers have died.
It does mean that these deaths would be likely to be more concentrated in the denser areas, indeed, but there, more than 0.1% of the population there have died of it.
Sorry my mistake for not being clear, I meant if 1% of New Yorkers die of it it doesn’t mean the worldwide death rate is 1%.
Densely populated + awful air pollution... are there cities/towns/villages without these factors that have had worse than average covid-19 outcomes? (Not Care Homes)
If X that doesn't mean Y, particularly as not X?
Can’t bothered with angry misery today
The problem is that you can't be bothered with logic.
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
Really useful and generally there appears to be a decent correlation with some aspects here (ameliorated by the start time of any lockdown) and severity.
How come France is so bad?
France is counting estimated deaths in care homes, the rest of European countries aren't in the daily stats. It means the numbers of deaths is around 60-80% higher than just hospital deaths.
I know, but on the population density scale they should be one of the least affected countries
If this guy's hypothesis is right and his tests of sample stack up then in the UK between 6 and 10 million people have had the virus.
Big if obviously. But intriguing to say the least.
Listened to first ten minutes and you're right it was interesting. However How do you work out your numbers 4% (his high estimate) of our population would be under 3 million by my maths.
I think that dry run tests of the ability to lock down will be a feature of the future - at various scales.
I think there’s a big chance it will be used by people with bad motives in the future. We have shown how willing we are to defer to authority, and how many people get angry with those who even question it.
"Willing to defer to authority" largely means (give or take the odd over interpretation by police numpties) willing to obey the law, which is a good thing to be; these are not laws which say we have to round up Jews or segregate blacks. As to anger, it is not in my case the questioning of the law or policy - I am quite happy to think the Swedes might have a point, and certainly willing them to succeed - it is the sheer gratuitous stupidity (I don't mean from you) of many of the arguments on the lines of it's just flu, more people die in car crashes and so on.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
Really useful and generally there appears to be a decent correlation with some aspects here (ameliorated by the start time of any lockdown) and severity.
How come France is so bad?
France is counting estimated deaths in care homes, the rest of European countries aren't in the daily stats. It means the numbers of deaths is around 60-80% higher than just hospital deaths.
I wonder - does anyone still think there will be less than 60,000 deaths in the first wave in the UK?
Despite all the apoplectic outrage about "ridiculous" - but far lower - estimates a short while ago.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
That’s why saying 1% of New York dying from it shouldn’t be taken as meaning the death rate is 1% in my opinion, esp when you add in pollution.
Well, the death rate there is currently 0.1%, which does mean 0.1% of NY has died of it. If one in a hundred New Yorkers, regardless of where they live in New York, have died, then 1% of New Yorkers have died.
It does mean that these deaths would be likely to be more concentrated in the denser areas, indeed, but there, more than 0.1% of the population there have died of it.
Sorry my mistake for not being clear, I meant if 1% of New Yorkers die of it it doesn’t mean the worldwide death rate is 1%.
Densely populated + awful air pollution... are there cities/towns/villages without these factors that have had worse than average covid-19 outcomes? (Not Care Homes)
If X that doesn't mean Y, particularly as not X?
Can’t bothered with angry misery today
The problem is that you can't be bothered with logic.
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
Not at all, I am very interested. You’re just unpleasant to have to deal with, it’s a personal sleight on you
There are a number of prerequisites, the most important of which is getting a nationwide network of test and trace teams in place in order that new cases can be quickly detected and isolated.
It’s a good idea to get people who volunteered as NHS helpers to do this, but perhaps managed by someone from Sandhurst rather than PHE.
Concise public communications is also going to be vital. Telling everyone to stay put is one thing, a more nuanced message quite another.
But this is not the same as treating us like fools....
At least its ahowing a lot more sense than the Daily Jackboot.
What the fuck is the "Daily Jackboot"? And what kind of twat uses that term?
Hurrah for the Blackshirts
It has always intrigued me that the Daily Mail is never allowed to forget its brief flirtation with Mosley while nobody ever mentions that the Daily Mirror was far more enthusiastic about them for far longer.
Maybe it's the suspicion that the DM would still be supporting the black shirts if they were around now?
The Daily Mirror supported Corbyn *innocent face*
Or the Guardian having as one of its main columnists a man who supported Stalin. The tolerance of those who supported or excused the crimes of Communism is both baffling and morally repellent.
It is possible to abhor both regimes.
And not to excuse Stalin’s crimes one bit, I do wonder if without the iron grip he had on the USSR they would have been able, albeit after a disastrous 1941, to eventually beat Nazi Germany. Would it have been worse to see Stalin defeated with Hitler dominating Europe? Hitler would’ve then gone for the Middle East and into India, given half a chance. He wanted global domination, not just Eastern Europe.
I obviously don’t know the answers, it’s just an interesting ’what if?...’
Nah, the Japanese would have taken most of British India, leaving what is today Pakistan to the Germans:
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
Really useful and generally there appears to be a decent correlation with some aspects here (ameliorated by the start time of any lockdown) and severity.
How come France is so bad?
France is counting estimated deaths in care homes, the rest of European countries aren't in the daily stats. It means the numbers of deaths is around 60-80% higher than just hospital deaths.
I know, but on the population density scale they should be one of the least affected countries
You need to weight up pop density relative to the population even more than Andy has done I think. Spain would be much much more effectively densely populated than France or ourselves on this metric though.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
That’s why saying 1% of New York dying from it shouldn’t be taken as meaning the death rate is 1% in my opinion, esp when you add in pollution.
Well, the death rate there is currently 0.1%, which does mean 0.1% of NY has died of it. If one in a hundred New Yorkers, regardless of where they live in New York, have died, then 1% of New Yorkers have died.
It does mean that these deaths would be likely to be more concentrated in the denser areas, indeed, but there, more than 0.1% of the population there have died of it.
Sorry my mistake for not being clear, I meant if 1% of New Yorkers die of it it doesn’t mean the worldwide death rate is 1%.
Densely populated + awful air pollution... are there cities/towns/villages without these factors that have had worse than average covid-19 outcomes? (Not Care Homes)
If X that doesn't mean Y, particularly as not X?
Can’t bothered with angry misery today
The problem is that you can't be bothered with logic.
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
Not at all, I am very interested. You’re just unpleasant to have to deal with, it’s a personal sleight on you
Yes - of course I realised it was pure ad hominem. But that's your problem.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
That’s why saying 1% of New York dying from it shouldn’t be taken as meaning the death rate is 1% in my opinion, esp when you add in pollution.
Well, the death rate there is currently 0.1%, which does mean 0.1% of NY has died of it. If one in a hundred New Yorkers, regardless of where they live in New York, have died, then 1% of New Yorkers have died.
It does mean that these deaths would be likely to be more concentrated in the denser areas, indeed, but there, more than 0.1% of the population there have died of it.
Sorry my mistake for not being clear, I meant if 1% of New Yorkers die of it it doesn’t mean the worldwide death rate is 1%.
Densely populated + awful air pollution... are there cities/towns/villages without these factors that have had worse than average covid-19 outcomes? (Not Care Homes)
If X that doesn't mean Y, particularly as not X?
Can’t bothered with angry misery today
The problem is that you can't be bothered with logic.
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
Not at all, I am very interested. You’re just unpleasant to have to deal with, it’s a personal sleight on you
Yes - of course I realised it was pure ad hominem. But that's your problem.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
That’s why saying 1% of New York dying from it shouldn’t be taken as meaning the death rate is 1% in my opinion, esp when you add in pollution.
Well, the death rate there is currently 0.1%, which does mean 0.1% of NY has died of it. If one in a hundred New Yorkers, regardless of where they live in New York, have died, then 1% of New Yorkers have died.
It does mean that these deaths would be likely to be more concentrated in the denser areas, indeed, but there, more than 0.1% of the population there have died of it.
Sorry my mistake for not being clear, I meant if 1% of New Yorkers die of it it doesn’t mean the worldwide death rate is 1%.
Densely populated + awful air pollution... are there cities/towns/villages without these factors that have had worse than average covid-19 outcomes? (Not Care Homes)
If X that doesn't mean Y, particularly as not X?
Can’t bothered with angry misery today
The problem is that you can't be bothered with logic.
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
Not at all, I am very interested. You’re just unpleasant to have to deal with, it’s a personal sleight on you
Yes - of course I realised it was pure ad hominem. But that's your problem.
Don’t care x
I'm not sure it's a good idea for the schools to reopen from an epidemiological point of view. But it could be beneficial for Internet discussion groups, if it means kids are supervised in the daytime.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
Really useful and generally there appears to be a decent correlation with some aspects here (ameliorated by the start time of any lockdown) and severity.
How come France is so bad?
France is counting estimated deaths in care homes, the rest of European countries aren't in the daily stats. It means the numbers of deaths is around 60-80% higher than just hospital deaths.
I know, but on the population density scale they should be one of the least affected countries
You need to weight up pop density relative to the population even more than Andy has done I think. Spain would be much much more effectively densely populated than France or ourselves on this metric though.
Does that table really tell us very much? It doesn't tell us how many people are living 6 to a room, or what the size of households is, how many people get into crowded public transport every day etc. The "built-up density" is actually just the population density of the whole country when you exclude the 1km cells where nobody is living. It's not really telling us anything about the density in urban areas, nor how many people live in urban areas.
Those riots are quite quite different to the normal French farmers dumping manure on a minister.
These are the bainlieues rising up. Potentially disastrous
There are two sides to this. French police are brutal and the state does a bad job of integrating, but there are also loads of videos of the BAME communities in the French suburbs completely ignoring the lockdown and laughing at police trying to enforce it.
A collision was inevitable
While we are very down on the prospects for the UK. France is a very troubled country. Even before CV huge social issues and econmic issues, and unlike Germany or UK, a very rigid labour market and a people who won't accept even modest reform.
Actually macron’s reforms were just starting to pay off as this virus hit. Check the stats on new business starts in the last couple of years. A huge surge. This bug came at just the wrong moment.
If you want to see real trouble in Europe look further south, to Italy
The article is good but what’s truly fascinating is the comment section underneath. It is full of Dutch, French, German and Italian readers all laying into each other. The insults between the Italians and the Dutch are particularly savage. The Dutch accuse the Italians of being feckless thieves, the Italians say the Dutch are soulless hypocrites.
A mighty storm is brewing in the eurozone. They need coronabonds to weather it, but the Dutch and probably the Germans won’t allow this. Something has to give. The Italians might default
'A mighty storm is brewing in the eurozone'
I'm overwhelmed by a wearying wave of déjà vu.
Fwiw Agnès Poirier on Start the Week this am said that coronabonds were likely to come about, mainly because polling showed that the German populace were very much in favour of them.
What matters is getting it approved by the Bundestag & Merkel has said on numerous occasions no coronabonds.
Likewise the Austrian and Dutch finance ministers have flatly refused mutualised debt.
So bonds per se won't happen. Not least because Germany, Austria and Holland are all likely to be in deep recession for a while, as their export sectors take an enormous hit.
What, then, will happen? Italy is tottering...
Mutualised Eurozone bonds *HAVE* to happen for the EZ to survive, the lack of political support for them in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands risks undoing the whole project. They should have been more careful about the countries admitted to the Euro in the first place, but now they are where they are and need to do something about it.
Oh, and Spain, Italy and Greece rely heavily on the tourist industry for revenue, things in those three countries are going to get a whole lot worse before they start to get better.
I agree with that post, but I don't want to "like" it...
I still don't see *how* you get past the enormous obstacles to coronabonds, like
1. the need for Treaty change 2. The Dutch electorate 3. The German electorate 4. Same for Finland, Austria, and in the middle of a historic recession, with populist rightwing parties like AfD and Wilders ready to seize on any backsliding
I don't think they will happen, although I would order it 3, 1, 2 and who gives a toss about 4.
If the best Italy and Spain can come up with is something that was considered and rejected after the financial crisis that isn't a solution.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
That’s why saying 1% of New York dying from it shouldn’t be taken as meaning the death rate is 1% in my opinion, esp when you add in pollution.
Well, the death rate there is currently 0.1%, which does mean 0.1% of NY has died of it. If one in a hundred New Yorkers, regardless of where they live in New York, have died, then 1% of New Yorkers have died.
It does mean that these deaths would be likely to be more concentrated in the denser areas, indeed, but there, more than 0.1% of the population there have died of it.
Sorry my mistake for not being clear, I meant if 1% of New Yorkers die of it it doesn’t mean the worldwide death rate is 1%.
Densely populated + awful air pollution... are there cities/towns/villages without these factors that have had worse than average covid-19 outcomes? (Not Care Homes)
If X that doesn't mean Y, particularly as not X?
Can’t bothered with angry misery today
The problem is that you can't be bothered with logic.
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
When comparing the experience between countries, how packed in people are in built-up areas is obviously a major factor.
This shows (under "built up density") this metric across Europe. We should compare the death rates in similar countries to each other. (Credit to Alistair Rae in CityMetric)
That’s why saying 1% of New York dying from it shouldn’t be taken as meaning the death rate is 1% in my opinion, esp when you add in pollution.
Well, the death rate there is currently 0.1%, which does mean 0.1% of NY has died of it. If one in a hundred New Yorkers, regardless of where they live in New York, have died, then 1% of New Yorkers have died.
It does mean that these deaths would be likely to be more concentrated in the denser areas, indeed, but there, more than 0.1% of the population there have died of it.
Sorry my mistake for not being clear, I meant if 1% of New Yorkers die of it it doesn’t mean the worldwide death rate is 1%.
Densely populated + awful air pollution... are there cities/towns/villages without these factors that have had worse than average covid-19 outcomes? (Not Care Homes)
If X that doesn't mean Y, particularly as not X?
Can’t bothered with angry misery today
The problem is that you can't be bothered with logic.
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
You are an offensive little jerk.
People come on here to escape. I understand that you are feeling pressure right now, but that doesn't give you the right to behave like this
Comments
No surprise there. And no surprise about your non-response.
However How do you work out your numbers 4% (his high estimate) of our population would be under 3 million by my maths.
NEW THREAD
Despite all the apoplectic outrage about "ridiculous" - but far lower - estimates a short while ago.
If the best Italy and Spain can come up with is something that was considered and rejected after the financial crisis that isn't a solution.
Basically the Eurozone needs to print money.
People come on here to escape. I understand that you are feeling pressure right now, but that doesn't give you the right to behave like this