On topic, it’s possible that Covid-19 is manmade. It’s even possible that it was deliberately released. The evidence for such serious claims, however, is thin. Western governments have sexed up evidence for political purposes before and the time when they can be trusted to be essentially honest is long past, if it ever existed.
yes the CCP should not be scrutinised
I’m rereading what I wrote and wondering how on earth you extracted that from my words. Since I don’t believe any such thing, and have avoided visiting China to date in part because I so strongly disapprove of that regime, I can only deduce that it comes from within the reader than from the written words.
I visited China back in 2002. Had a very short lived but acute sickness when I entered Australia (Having been through Thailand). Never thought much of it, but looking back at the timeline of SARS 1 recently has me thinking ^^;
Here's the thing, you see. Michael Gove has probably done more for Holocaust education and the Jewish community in Britain than any senior politician other than Gordon Brown. It's obvious to anyone why he would have read the work of a Holocaust denier.
Owen Jones, on the other hand, was an actual cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn - a man described by one of his own MPs as a "racist antisemite". If Jones had his way, that same Jeremy Corbyn would be in Number Ten right now.
Twitter can be annoying, infuriating and sometimes plain pointless. But sometimes it can reveal truths. And in one stupid tweet last night, Owen Jones confirmed a truth about himself and his fellow hard left travellers: that their true ideology is hypocrisy.
Who said anything about reading them? Displaying them on your bookshelf is a different thing.
I think I have a video of Triumph of The Will kicking about in a trunk somewhere. The humiliation of having a shelf full of videotapes aside, I wouldn't be sticking it in a bookcase anytime. One of my favourite books is Memoirs of an Anti-Semite; in the unlikely event of me appearing on Zoom in front of my books, I'd think hard about displaying that due to the possibility of misinterpretation by the dumbasses that infest the world.
More than 10 times as many people in Germany have likely been infected with the coronavirus than the number of confirmed cases, researchers from the University of Bonn have concluded from a field trial in one of the worst hit towns.
That's quite some iceberg!
It's not really, it's in line with the data from New York. They also seem to have roughly 10 undetected cases for every detected case. My hunch is that the UK will prove to be about the same level.
The idea that there is a vast asymptomatic iceberg which means we can go back to normal without a huge number of deaths is increasingly implausible. Even for Germany these current figures give an IFR around 0.4%. Let the virus run through the population and a hell of a lot of Germans would die.
You would need the undetected cases to be something like 100 x the current known cases for that idea to have any merit. i.e. To get to a bad seasonal flu type of scenario.
There are simply far to many people who could still catch the virus and die to do anything other than maintain quite strict measures.
Agreed. Let's put it this way, so far the US has had just short of 70,000 confirmed CV deaths, which in just three months is roughly equivalent to the expected total 'flu deaths in a "bad" 'flu season year. Plus the CDC estimate of excess deaths from expected that are most likely to be attributable to COVID is another 30-40,000. It looks like NYC is showing an antibody rate of about 20% infected, so if we were to let it run unchecked, we'd probably be in the 400,000 deaths range, assuming that the whole country is currently at 20% infected which it clearly isn't.
6th-8th March looks very significant - from 3 to pretty much 1.
What happened there?
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much difference
Assuming that the graph is accurate in portraying those impacts, lockdown could still have saved countless lives.
If the infection period is deemed to last about a week, then if R had stayed at 0.9 the number of new cases at the end of 8 weeks would still be about 43% of the level at the start. By contrast if R were consistently 0.7 it means that new cases would be reduced to about 6% of the original level. R was 0.9 when lockdown started and has declined to about 0.7 since then, although the decline has been gradual not immediate.
Well there are 2 other factors that will have contribution to R falling gradually over the long term.
1) Some people have now had the desise and therefor wont get it again, this is the start of the heard effect,
2) The weather has been getting warmer, we don't know how big an impact this will have had, as I understand it most of this family of viruses are to some extent weather transmition affected, so this viruses may also be.
6th-8th March looks very significant - from 3 to pretty much 1.
What happened there?
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much difference
Assuming that the graph is accurate in portraying those impacts, lockdown could still have saved countless lives.
If the infection period is deemed to last about a week, then if R had stayed at 0.9 the number of new cases at the end of 8 weeks would still be about 43% of the level at the start. By contrast if R were consistently 0.7 it means that new cases would be reduced to about 6% of the original level. R was 0.9 when lockdown started and has declined to about 0.7 since then, although the decline has been gradual not immediate.
Well there are 2 other factors that will have contribution to R falling gradually over the long term.
1) Some people have now had the desise and therefor wont get it again, this is the start of the heard effect,
2) The weather has been getting warmer, we don't know how big an impact this will have had, as I understand it most of this family of viruses are to some extent weather transmition affected, so this viruses may also be.
I thought heat having a positive impact was debunked? That the virus could live on through temperatures well past those of a good old-fashioned English spring/summer.
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
Is a former two terms president ineligible to be elected to Congress?
No. Only VP needs to be eligible to become President (I think).
So Obama can still become president again then.
Nope. Even if he got into the order of succession by reason of being elected to Congress, he would be eliminated from the said order of succession by his being elected president twice.
Surely that cannot count as being elected president?
Becoming President doesn't require election, it does require eligibility.
But the 22nd only prohibits being elected president.
One further point about the Wuhan lab conspiracy is that epidemiology suggests the epidemic didn't necessarily originate in Hubei province. The only connection to the lab is the circumstantial evidence that the lab is very close to the meat market where the Chinese government originally said the outbreak originated. We now know for sure that the epidemic started a month or so earlier than the Wuhan market outbreak, making the lab connection moot.
To be clear there are plausible scenarios for the Wuhan lab accidentally releasing the virus into the neighbourhood. Thing is, they are all starting from the conclusion and working back to the justification when there are plenty of other explanations that are at least as plausible. Point is, this doesn't work for the US Administration. They need a conspiracy. Just saying something bad happened in China but we don't know what, lacks the necessary specificity.
6th-8th March looks very significant - from 3 to pretty much 1.
What happened there?
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much difference
Assuming that the graph is accurate in portraying those impacts, lockdown could still have saved countless lives.
If the infection period is deemed to last about a week, then if R had stayed at 0.9 the number of new cases at the end of 8 weeks would still be about 43% of the level at the start. By contrast if R were consistently 0.7 it means that new cases would be reduced to about 6% of the original level. R was 0.9 when lockdown started and has declined to about 0.7 since then, although the decline has been gradual not immediate.
Well there are 2 other factors that will have contribution to R falling gradually over the long term.
1) Some people have now had the desise and therefor wont get it again, this is the start of the heard effect,
2) The weather has been getting warmer, we don't know how big an impact this will have had, as I understand it most of this family of viruses are to some extent weather transmition affected, so this viruses may also be.
I thought heat having a positive impact was debunked? That the virus could live on through temperatures well past those of a good old-fashioned English spring/summer.
Its survival time on surfaces is affected by the heat (more strictly the sbsolute humidity). The question is how much of the transmission is via this route.
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
Public transport was still packed, football was still on.
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
6th-8th March looks very significant - from 3 to pretty much 1.
What happened there?
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much difference
I'd want to know the methodology behind this chart before coming to that conclusion.
The caption says it was calculated from "NHS England hospital deaths data." How in f*ck's name do they think they could calculate all that intricate up-and-down of Rt before 8 March, when the first death was reported on 7 March and the second on 8 March?
Pure unadulterated bullshit.
Method: NHS England #covid deaths data, backdating 23 days from deaths (5 days infection => symptoms + 18 days symptoms => death), and assuming a serial interval of 5 days.
Rock solid methodology definitely not designed to produce the outcome he wanted.
"Boris" Johnson never fooled anyone. Priti Patel is a "social liberal".
These are fabulous. But don't go thinking you can never top them. That way lies decline.
I never said Patel is a social liberal I said she is more liberal than people give her credit for.
I see. She is "more liberal than people give her credit for" albeit not a "social liberal". But is she still a social conservative? Most certainly think so. Both supporters and opponents alike think that. However it sounds like you think she is less conservative socially than people give her credit for. Is she fooling that base again, I wonder.
No its not about fooling, its not all or nothing.
I think Patel is a lot more liberal than David Cameron's Home Secretary was. She has been liberalising non-EU migration in a few areas and I can't see Patel sending "Go Home" vans into minority communities.
Do you disagree with that?
I think both Priti Patel and Theresa May are socially conservative. Boris Johnson, to the extent he has political convictions, is socially liberal. Thus in this regard Patel and May are more in touch with the Tory base and the Hard Brexit base than Johnson is. Patel is therefore fooling you but not the base. Johnson is fooling the base but not you. And neither of them, nor you, are fooling me.
Patel's not fooling me. Home Secretary tends to (regardless of party) go to a social conservative, its part of the role that social liberals rarely become Home Secretary.
I think Patel is a marked improvement on Theresa May from Cameron's days and anything is a marked improvement on May's days so I think this government is, even with Patel, an improvement there. I'd rather not go back to the vile nonsense of sending Go Home vans into ethnic minority communities - May should have been sacked after that and should never have been party leader.
We can certainly agree that the "Hostile Environment" was ghastly. But we were not really discussing that.
Would you like to hear my diagnosis of why you so often - at least when talking to me - end up having to deny the undeniable or trying to alter the point at issue?
You would? OK. It is quite simple. You make great play of being a "social liberal" and I think this is sincere. But few who are genuinely of that ilk are enthusiasts for Brexit. Brexit is not driven by that tradition. So to avoid this uncomfortable truth what you do is get into all sorts of contortions attempting to redefine the Brexit project as being animated by the spirit of social liberalism. Or at least as being fully compatible with it. A tough gig.
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Erhhh..its been commented on both on this thread and the previous.
I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Erhhh..its been commented on both on this thread and the previous.
So sorry. I had assumed the comments would have quoted the IFR, but they didn't, so my searches didn't find them.
I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.
I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.
Here's the thing, you see. Michael Gove has probably done more for Holocaust education and the Jewish community in Britain than any senior politician other than Gordon Brown. It's obvious to anyone why he would have read the work of a Holocaust denier.
Owen Jones, on the other hand, was an actual cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn - a man described by one of his own MPs as a "racist antisemite". If Jones had his way, that same Jeremy Corbyn would be in Number Ten right now.
Twitter can be annoying, infuriating and sometimes plain pointless. But sometimes it can reveal truths. And in one stupid tweet last night, Owen Jones confirmed a truth about himself and his fellow hard left travellers: that their true ideology is hypocrisy.
Who said anything about reading them? Displaying them on your bookshelf is a different thing.
I think I have a video of Triumph of The Will kicking about in a trunk somewhere. The humiliation of having a shelf full of videotapes aside, I wouldn't be sticking it in a bookcase anytime. One of my favourite books is Memoirs of an Anti-Semite; in the unlikely event of me appearing on Zoom in front of my books, I'd think hard about displaying that due to the possibility of misinterpretation by the dumbasses that infest the world.
Seriously? Even if there is indeed a risk of misinterpretation by dumbasses in that situation, the dumbassery is still on those misinterpreting it (particularly when motivated by partisan dislike and without any rational reason for assuming endorsement) and so any carelessness on the part of the displayer is pretty irrelevant.
"Method: NHS England #covid deaths data, backdating 23 days from deaths (5 days infection => symptoms + 18 days symptoms => death), and assuming a serial interval of 5 days."
Tweak those parameters even a tiny bit and you get Rt going under 1 coinciding with Lockdown instead of hand washing.
Ah yes. I remember this guy saying cumulative is the way to go but I don't see him using that in this chart when the trend is down rather than up. Apart from anything else an average of 23 days from infection to death seems generous if we are trying to pinpoint a policy change.
I believe the German study sampled from a region known to be hard hit. So again, difficult to blanket scale up nationwide.
If you follow the link I posted, you'll see this in the abstract: "While the number of infections in this high prevalence community is not representative for other parts of the world, the IFR calculated on the basis of the infection ratein this community can be utilizedto estimate the percentage of infected based onthe number of reported fatalities in other placeswith similar population characteristics."
I lived in Shanghai for one year - fantastic place. I visted Beijing - Forbidden City and Great Wall are...Great. But otherwise not up to much. I also visited Tianjing - filthy; Qingdao - great beer but otherwise - meh Jiangsu, QiDong nothing to report. Shandong area is interesting Guangshou ok
I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.
Its mentioned in the draft government advice for businesses to get back to work.
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.
Other things being equal, that's what it would suggest.
Rather than your conclusion of 0.5-0.8% IFR, presumably based on not having looked at the paper at all!
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
What you are saying is then is that Britons beat corona by themselves and the government's heavy handed lockdown was not really necessary.
With a much less authoritarian approach Britons might have 'locked down' in far more sensible and flexible ways than the teenagers in our government have designed, and they would be de-locking in the same way right now.
As it is, they will be left with an economy far more shattered than it needed to be and a debt mountain we will be paying off for the rest of our lives.
Why? largely because the cowards and children that run our country were terrified of upsetting an intellectually challenged media the country has deserted in droves.
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
Public transport was still packed, football was still on.
Sure.
But that doesn't change the point.
If 50% of transmissions were at football matches, and 50% in bars and restaurants, then you would see a 50% drop in the infection rate from people not going to bars and restaurants, even if they still went to football games.
"Boris" Johnson never fooled anyone. Priti Patel is a "social liberal".
These are fabulous. But don't go thinking you can never top them. That way lies decline.
I never said Patel is a social liberal I said she is more liberal than people give her credit for.
I see. She is "more liberal than people give her credit for" albeit not a "social liberal". But is she still a social conservative? Most certainly think so. Both supporters and opponents alike think that. However it sounds like you think she is less conservative socially than people give her credit for. Is she fooling that base again, I wonder.
No its not about fooling, its not all or nothing.
I think Patel is a lot more liberal than David Cameron's Home Secretary was. She has been liberalising non-EU migration in a few areas and I can't see Patel sending "Go Home" vans into minority communities.
Do you disagree with that?
I think both Priti Patel and Theresa May are socially conservative. Boris Johnson, to the extent he has political convictions, is socially liberal. Thus in this regard Patel and May are more in touch with the Tory base and the Hard Brexit base than Johnson is. Patel is therefore fooling you but not the base. Johnson is fooling the base but not you. And neither of them, nor you, are fooling me.
Patel's not fooling me. Home Secretary tends to (regardless of party) go to a social conservative, its part of the role that social liberals rarely become Home Secretary.
I think Patel is a marked improvement on Theresa May from Cameron's days and anything is a marked improvement on May's days so I think this government is, even with Patel, an improvement there. I'd rather not go back to the vile nonsense of sending Go Home vans into ethnic minority communities - May should have been sacked after that and should never have been party leader.
We can certainly agree that the "Hostile Environment" was ghastly. But we were not really discussing that.
Would you like to hear my diagnosis of why you so often - at least when talking to me - end up having to deny the undeniable or trying to alter the point at issue?
You would? OK. It is quite simple. You make great play of being a "social liberal" and I think this is sincere. But few who are genuinely of that ilk are enthusiasts for Brexit. Brexit is not driven by that tradition. So to avoid this uncomfortable truth what you do is get into all sorts of contortions attempting to redefine the Brexit project as being animated by the spirit of social liberalism. Or at least as being fully compatible with it. A tough gig.
Brexit's not driven by liberalism I never claimed it was. Brexit is a big tent that isn't on a liberal or conservative axis.
More than 10 times as many people in Germany have likely been infected with the coronavirus than the number of confirmed cases, researchers from the University of Bonn have concluded from a field trial in one of the worst hit towns.
That's quite some iceberg!
My guess is that it is the same here. I think its been here since November/December
I think that was what my wife had late December, bilateral pneumonia but they did not manage to find out what it was over more than 5 weeks in hospital what had caused it, said it was massive inflammation and very unusual.
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.
Other things being equal, that's what it would suggest.
Rather than your conclusion of 0.5-0.8% IFR, presumably based on not having looked at the paper at all!
Yes, but my point was that you can't assume "other things being equal".
My point was that if you have a terrible problem in care homes, then you will overestimate the number of people who've had it.
I don't think that's an outrageous, or even particularly controversial, point of view.
I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.
Its mentioned in the draft government advice for businesses to get back to work.
I don't think any one is suggesting that 14 minutes and you're fine, 16 and you'll catch it. I think it's one of those broad brush approximations for where the risk lies.
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
What you are saying is then is that Britons beat corona by themselves and the government's heavy handed lockdown was not really necessary.
With a much less authoritarian approach Britons might have 'locked down' in far more sensible and flexible ways than the teenagers in our government have designed, and they would be de-locking in the same way right now.
As it is, they will be left with an economy far more shattered than it needed to be and a debt mountain we will be paying off for the rest of our lives.
Why? largely because the cowards and children that run our country were terrified of upsetting an intellectually challenged media the country has deserted in droves.
Do we know for certain that masks are effective, and if so, how effective?
Define masks. N95 without valve: protects you and others N95 with valve: protects you, not others Surgical mask: pretty good protection of others, not you (although there was some field work done for masks and protection against flu about a decade ago which indicates that they may give partial protection to the wearer). Cloth masks: too many variables to say. Some probably work pretty well at protecting others, particularly those with pockets for some sort of filter or tissue insert. Others probably provide only minor protection for others. Again, these masks do not provide protection for you.
I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.
Its mentioned in the draft government advice for businesses to get back to work.
I don't think any one is suggesting that 14 minutes and you're fine, 16 and you'll catch it. I think it's one of those broad brush approximations for where the risk lies.
Yes i know. Just wondered why it came from. The 1-2m thing comes from the science of large droplets. Not heard anybody explain 15.mins things come from.
I don't like the sound of this you click the app to say you have symptoms...how many twats are going to f##k with this.
It would be good if you them booked your test through the app and it automatically updated with the result.
This is the way it has to be. Must be confirmed via test and the individual either gets a code to input or the app pings it thriugh. We can't have people being able to just set it to positive by flicking a slider.
That's because of increased testing. A few days ago I wouldn't have been able to get tested for my mild symptoms. We are just picking up people who would never have been tested before. The blue bars are on the old basis of hospital admissions plus health care workers, and seems to be steadily falling
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.
Other things being equal, that's what it would suggest.
Rather than your conclusion of 0.5-0.8% IFR, presumably based on not having looked at the paper at all!
Yes, but my point was that you can't assume "other things being equal".
The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Good grief.
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?
"Boris" Johnson never fooled anyone. Priti Patel is a "social liberal".
These are fabulous. But don't go thinking you can never top them. That way lies decline.
I never said Patel is a social liberal I said she is more liberal than people give her credit for.
I see. She is "more liberal than people give her credit for" albeit not a "social liberal". But is she still a social conservative? Most certainly think so. Both supporters and opponents alike think that. However it sounds like you think she is less conservative socially than people give her credit for. Is she fooling that base again, I wonder.
No its not about fooling, its not all or nothing.
I think Patel is a lot more liberal than David Cameron's Home Secretary was. She has been liberalising non-EU migration in a few areas and I can't see Patel sending "Go Home" vans into minority communities.
Do you disagree with that?
I think both Priti Patel and Theresa May are socially conservative. Boris Johnson, to the extent he has political convictions, is socially liberal. Thus in this regard Patel and May are more in touch with the Tory base and the Hard Brexit base than Johnson is. Patel is therefore fooling you but not the base. Johnson is fooling the base but not you. And neither of them, nor you, are fooling me.
Patel's not fooling me. Home Secretary tends to (regardless of party) go to a social conservative, its part of the role that social liberals rarely become Home Secretary.
I think Patel is a marked improvement on Theresa May from Cameron's days and anything is a marked improvement on May's days so I think this government is, even with Patel, an improvement there. I'd rather not go back to the vile nonsense of sending Go Home vans into ethnic minority communities - May should have been sacked after that and should never have been party leader.
We can certainly agree that the "Hostile Environment" was ghastly. But we were not really discussing that.
Would you like to hear my diagnosis of why you so often - at least when talking to me - end up having to deny the undeniable or trying to alter the point at issue?
You would? OK. It is quite simple. You make great play of being a "social liberal" and I think this is sincere. But few who are genuinely of that ilk are enthusiasts for Brexit. Brexit is not driven by that tradition. So to avoid this uncomfortable truth what you do is get into all sorts of contortions attempting to redefine the Brexit project as being animated by the spirit of social liberalism. Or at least as being fully compatible with it. A tough gig.
Brexit's not driven by liberalism I never claimed it was. Brexit is a big tent that isn't on a liberal or conservative axis.
Socially liberal attitudes are strongly and negatively correlated to enthusiasm for Brexit. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt in countless studies, surveys and polls. To argue otherwise is so irrational it must come from a place of need. Hence my diagnosis.
I predict a similar thing will happen with you and a fair few other Conservative posters when the time comes for us to take a hard look at Sunak's proposals for tacking the post corona public finances. There will be a need to support what he will do and at the same time maintain that Osborne was right in what he did. Some acrobatic contortions will ensue.
The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
I reckon something like 1m will be made redundant and maybe another million gig workers will find their contracts at an end. Which compared with the 30m jobs lost in the US is an incredibly good result.
A quote from a senior retail executive in the FT nails what is around the corner.
The gist is that an awful lot of the millions of furloughed people are actually unemployed.
They just don;t know it yet.
This is an addition to extra universal credit claims of an extra 1.75 to 2m
That's actually a problem for the companies who have furloughed those people as one of the original criteria of the scheme was that there is a job to go back to.
The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Good grief.
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?
Lots of civil servants on paid special leave. I'm now working from home but after clearing about a week's backlog I haven't had much to do.
The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Many, many more than if the furlough wasn't there.
it is what it is, what was done is done. getting them off furlough in the next two months is critical.
Why?
There's talk of 3 months potentially until social distancing ends in some businesses. Why would you end furlough in 2 months then end restrictions in 3?
The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Good grief.
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?
In Sheffield the staff at the recycling centres have been redeployed to the bin collection staff as the latter some of them have to self isolate.
The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Good grief.
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?
In Sheffield the staff at the recycling centres have been redeployed to the bin collection staff as the latter some of them have to self isolate.
Comments
I visited mostly Shanghai and Beijing.
I think I have a video of Triumph of The Will kicking about in a trunk somewhere. The humiliation of having a shelf full of videotapes aside, I wouldn't be sticking it in a bookcase anytime. One of my favourite books is Memoirs of an Anti-Semite; in the unlikely event of me appearing on Zoom in front of my books, I'd think hard about displaying that due to the possibility of misinterpretation by the dumbasses that infest the world.
1) Some people have now had the desise and therefor wont get it again, this is the start of the heard effect,
2) The weather has been getting warmer, we don't know how big an impact this will have had, as I understand it most of this family of viruses are to some extent weather transmition affected, so this viruses may also be.
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
Here's me in Yangshuo
https://www.expressen.se/tv/nyheter/coronaviruset/tegnell-vi-kommer-aldrig-bli-av-med-denna-sjukdomen/
The 7 day trend line is very linear at the moment.
Got up to 40C when I was there, which was rather toasty.
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Would you like to hear my diagnosis of why you so often - at least when talking to me - end up having to deny the undeniable or trying to alter the point at issue?
You would? OK. It is quite simple. You make great play of being a "social liberal" and I think this is sincere. But few who are genuinely of that ilk are enthusiasts for Brexit. Brexit is not driven by that tradition. So to avoid this uncomfortable truth what you do is get into all sorts of contortions attempting to redefine the Brexit project as being animated by the spirit of social liberalism. Or at least as being fully compatible with it. A tough gig.
Its Hancock up today, so sure he is going to get incoming about missing the target.
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.
Talking of circumstantial evidence: Gordon Park's conviction upheld.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/r-v-park-judgment-010520.pdf
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1249987166802976770
"While the number of infections in this high prevalence community is not representative for other parts of the world, the IFR calculated on the basis of the infection ratein this community can be utilizedto estimate the percentage of infected based onthe number of reported fatalities in other placeswith similar population characteristics."
Obesity in patients younger than 60 years is a risk factor for Covid-19 hospital admission
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa415/5818333
I visted Beijing - Forbidden City and Great Wall are...Great. But otherwise not up to much.
I also visited Tianjing - filthy;
Qingdao - great beer but otherwise - meh
Jiangsu, QiDong nothing to report.
Shandong area is interesting
Guangshou ok
"Yeah, but Corona" seems to be the new get out of jail free card.
Its never going to be the same on the weekend as during the week.
But we are not seeing that yet.
Rather than your conclusion of 0.5-0.8% IFR, presumably based on not having looked at the paper at all!
With a much less authoritarian approach Britons might have 'locked down' in far more sensible and flexible ways than the teenagers in our government have designed, and they would be de-locking in the same way right now.
As it is, they will be left with an economy far more shattered than it needed to be and a debt mountain we will be paying off for the rest of our lives.
Why? largely because the cowards and children that run our country were terrified of upsetting an intellectually challenged media the country has deserted in droves.
But that doesn't change the point.
If 50% of transmissions were at football matches, and 50% in bars and restaurants, then you would see a 50% drop in the infection rate from people not going to bars and restaurants, even if they still went to football games.
I can see the shit show here in 2-3 months time when you can't get any.l, let alone from a vending machine.
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1257308849708527618
EDIT: Sorry I may have misread your message.
My point was that if you have a terrible problem in care homes, then you will overestimate the number of people who've had it.
I don't think that's an outrageous, or even particularly controversial, point of view.
N95 without valve: protects you and others
N95 with valve: protects you, not others
Surgical mask: pretty good protection of others, not you (although there was some field work done for masks and protection against flu about a decade ago which indicates that they may give partial protection to the wearer).
Cloth masks: too many variables to say. Some probably work pretty well at protecting others, particularly those with pockets for some sort of filter or tissue insert. Others probably provide only minor protection for others. Again, these masks do not provide protection for you.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Def on the home straight now .
It being linear is a very, very good thing when it goes down! Hopefully it stays linear!
No comment is required is it.
We wont need 100k tests a day soon - buggers cant find anyone to test.
108k capacity on a Sunday doesn't mean we won't get more tomorrow.
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?
The gist is that an awful lot of the millions of furloughed people are actually unemployed.
They just don;t know it yet.
This is an addition to extra universal credit claims of an extra 1.75 to 2m
I guess you could say those are at least people that do know they are unemployed.
I predict a similar thing will happen with you and a fair few other Conservative posters when the time comes for us to take a hard look at Sunak's proposals for tacking the post corona public finances. There will be a need to support what he will do and at the same time maintain that Osborne was right in what he did. Some acrobatic contortions will ensue.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1257329572124798977
Shadsy is openly mocking people takin this bet.
We'll see what tomorrow brings. I expect it to be a new record amount.
Hancock met his target (he says) so he has moved on.
We should now move onto test track and trace
There's talk of 3 months potentially until social distancing ends in some businesses. Why would you end furlough in 2 months then end restrictions in 3?
Furlough should end once we are back to normal.
If there were a company doing something similar and we could buy their app and expand it, that would give me a bit more confidence.