Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » COVID-19: It’s Not Your Fault

1235

Comments

  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    blairf said:

    blairf said:

    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    so four million workers when you add the extra universal credit claims right? is that really much better than the US proportionally?

    I would say given the government's dithering, which is killing the economy more every single day, 2m out of that six is a very conservative estimate.

    But we shall see.
    You just don't get it do you?
    The lockdown is working.
    The economy would be in a worse state if there were no lockdown and Covid-19 had run riot.
    except it wouldn't have if we hadn't arsed up the response. ref korea, thailand, japan, sweden, iceland, taiwan, and yes even china. we drove our economy off a cliff in a fit of panic fuelled by hysteria and rushed modelling. hey ho. we need to kick on. And that is accepting we are not ALL GOING TO DIE by going back to work

    You realise that Sweden is seeing large job losses right now too don't you?
    we all are. the global economy just got borked. we need to deal with that. it has happened. now we need to review the wreckage and get on with it. more debt and refusing to accept the reality of furlough to redundancy (which everyone is looking at, trust me, everyone) won't work.
    Well we don't know what the wreckage is yet. If we can eliminate the virus New Zealand style then we may be able to lift more restrictions while putting more in at the border and avoid much of the economic damage.

    It will take a bit of patience at this stage.
    Given the nature of the UK, we could wait five years for that to happen. Or five hundred.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Poor hygiene leads to an employee getting infected in the lab. Passes on the virus via human to human transmission at the wet market.

    Given "patient zero" has never been identified that seems quite plausible.
    See my case 3 after yours
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    blairf said:

    blairf said:

    eristdoof said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    so four million workers when you add the extra universal credit claims right? is that really much better than the US proportionally?

    I would say given the government's dithering, which is killing the economy more every single day, 2m out of that six is a very conservative estimate.

    But we shall see.
    You just don't get it do you?
    The lockdown is working.
    The economy would be in a worse state if there were no lockdown and Covid-19 had run riot.
    except it wouldn't have if we hadn't arsed up the response. ref korea, thailand, japan, sweden, iceland, taiwan, and yes even china. we drove our economy off a cliff in a fit of panic fuelled by hysteria and rushed modelling. hey ho. we need to kick on. And that is accepting we are not ALL GOING TO DIE by going back to work

    You realise that Sweden is seeing large job losses right now too don't you?
    we all are. the global economy just got borked. we need to deal with that. it has happened. now we need to review the wreckage and get on with it. more debt and refusing to accept the reality of furlough to redundancy (which everyone is looking at, trust me, everyone) won't work.
    Well we don't know what the wreckage is yet. If we can eliminate the virus New Zealand style then we may be able to lift more restrictions while putting more in at the border and avoid much of the economic damage.

    It will take a bit of patience at this stage.
    Given the nature of the UK, we could wait five years for that to happen. Or five hundred.
    Or 5 weeks.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Mine is procrastination ... :tired_face:
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Assuming that's correct (14% of under 40s have a long term condition) then its not killing them in large numbers, then its not killing them in large numbers there have been 157 deaths in that age catogary so far.

    Aery quick calculation:

    Approximately 30 million under 40s

    14% of 30 million is 4.2 million

    As some have estimated on here earlia we have so far had about 12% of population infected.

    12% of 4.2 million is 504,000 people,

    So if every one of those 157 deaths had a pre-existing condition that would be

    A 1 in 3,210 change of dying. or 0.03% death rate.

    Now this is a lot of estimation and may well be off, but it is such a small preposition that even if the numbers are off by a magnitude of 10 then its worth a tiny number.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    TimT said:

    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Mine is procrastination ... :tired_face:
    When I get round to it i'll wright a good reply to that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    Oh i can see problems...

    Apparently to get the tracking app, people are being sent special instructions, but the apps are on the app stores (just hidden)

    While in theory there is nothing to prevent the details being shared and used by others elsewhere, NHSX hopes this will not happen as it could confuse the feedback it receives.

    Some twat is going to tweet the instructions aren't they.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    edited May 2020
    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    Wrong. The house vote doesn't work the way you think it does. It needs a majority of states. It has a built-in republican majority.
    Even so currently 23 states have a Democratic majority in terms of Representatives with 1 tie, so only needs 3 more states for a Democratic majority of states overall
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    Such a shame the rule isn't that you can't win more than two Presidential terms in a row.

    Surely the point is to prevent an incumbent going on and on - as an incumbent has an advantage in an election.

    It would also be great as a spectacle with Presidents going head to head.

    We would have had Bush v Clinton in 2004 (*) and Trump v Obama in 2020.

    (*) Clinton would have fought an election against a father and his son!

    I think Obama would have beaten Trump to get a third term and Clinton would have beaten Bush to get a third term and Reagan would definitely have beaten Dukakis to get a third term, however Obama would probably have beaten Bush in 2008 anyway so he would only have got the 2 terms.

    However even the best leaders should stop at 10 years, Blair leaving in 2007 was the best thing to happen to him, Thatcher should have gone in 1989 rather than being forced out in tears in 1990 by Heseltine' s leadership challenge
    Didn't the Chinese enforce leadership changes every 10 years for a few decades, pre Xi (post Mao obviously), presumably on a similar principle?
    Yes, most company chairmen and ceos in the private sector also leave after a maximum of 10 years
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Isle of Wight seeing the benefits of voting Conservative.

    Isle of Skye - well, if you will vote for the Ian Blackford...
    Indeed.

    Or maybe its the (Westminster funded) bridge.
    It was funded out of PFI - and the tolls hit the pockets of the local people and their visitors. Edit: Infamously so.

    Mind, there was no Scottish Parliament then.

    Ask the barstewards about Crossrial, HS2 and all the other infrastructure in England we pay for.
    You don't pay for those. We've discussed this before, they're classed as local expenditure here and you get Barnett consequentials for them. Why do you still repeat that claim?
    Because you talk bollox, show the evidence, they regularly use scams to not add to Barnet, we pay for English infrastructure , ie HS2 and they don't Barnet the bribes, ie DUP and they did not and do not pay for Scottish infrastructure, ie Forth Bridge.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    BigRich said:

    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Assuming that's correct (14% of under 40s have a long term condition) then its not killing them in large numbers, then its not killing them in large numbers there have been 157 deaths in that age catogary so far.

    Aery quick calculation:

    Approximately 30 million under 40s

    14% of 30 million is 4.2 million

    As some have estimated on here earlia we have so far had about 12% of population infected.

    12% of 4.2 million is 504,000 people,

    So if every one of those 157 deaths had a pre-existing condition that would be

    A 1 in 3,210 change of dying. or 0.03% death rate.

    Now this is a lot of estimation and may well be off, but it is such a small preposition that even if the numbers are off by a magnitude of 10 then its worth a tiny number.
    Killing 1 out of every 300 people under 40 isn't "tiny" at all.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468

    Oh i can see problems...

    Apparently to get the tracking app, people are being sent special instructions, but the apps are on the app stores (just hidden)

    While in theory there is nothing to prevent the details being shared and used by others elsewhere, NHSX hopes this will not happen as it could confuse the feedback it receives.

    Some twat is going to tweet the instructions aren't they.

    I don’t understand what the problem is. Can’t they just filter the location data so they’re only working with data from the Isle of White?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    BigRich said:

    TimT said:

    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Mine is procrastination ... :tired_face:
    When I get round to it i'll wright a good reply to that.
    :0
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    Heavy heavyweight boxing match:
    Eddie "The Beast" Hall vs Julius "The mountain" Halfpjor boxing match confirmed for Vegas Autumn 2021.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    It could all come down to Congregational district 2 in Maine, (Maine votes by congregational district as well as state wide) and this year Mane is voting by a system of ranked chose voting, which I think gets some on here exited!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    Such a shame the rule isn't that you can't win more than two Presidential terms in a row.

    Surely the point is to prevent an incumbent going on and on - as an incumbent has an advantage in an election.

    It would also be great as a spectacle with Presidents going head to head.

    We would have had Bush v Clinton in 2004 (*) and Trump v Obama in 2020.

    (*) Clinton would have fought an election against a father and his son!

    I think Obama would have beaten Trump to get a third term and Clinton would have beaten Bush to get a third term and Reagan would definitely have beaten Dukakis to get a third term, however Obama would probably have beaten Bush in 2008 anyway so he would only have got the 2 terms.

    However even the best leaders should stop at 10 years, Blair leaving in 2007 was the best thing to happen to him, Thatcher should have gone in 1989 rather than being forced out in tears in 1990 by Heseltine' s leadership challenge
    Didn't the Chinese enforce leadership changes every 10 years for a few decades, pre Xi (post Mao obviously), presumably on a similar principle?
    Yes, most company chairmen and ceos in the private sector also leave after a maximum of 10 years
    Tim Cook has been CEO of Apple since 2011. I wonder if he will retire next year, although I doubt it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    edited May 2020
    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    It could all come down to Congregational district 2 in Maine, (Maine votes by congregational district as well as state wide) and this year Mane is voting by a system of ranked chose voting, which I think gets some on here exited!
    Also Nebraska which votes by congressional district
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Isle of Wight seeing the benefits of voting Conservative.

    Isle of Skye - well, if you will vote for the Ian Blackford...
    Indeed.

    Or maybe its the (Westminster funded) bridge.
    It was funded out of PFI - and the tolls hit the pockets of the local people and their visitors. Edit: Infamously so.

    Mind, there was no Scottish Parliament then.

    Ask the barstewards about Crossrial, HS2 and all the other infrastructure in England we pay for.
    You don't pay for those. We've discussed this before, they're classed as local expenditure here and you get Barnett consequentials for them. Why do you still repeat that claim?
    Because you talk bollox, show the evidence, they regularly use scams to not add to Barnet, we pay for English infrastructure , ie HS2 and they don't Barnet the bribes, ie DUP and they did not and do not pay for Scottish infrastructure, ie Forth Bridge.
    Confirmation from the UK Government: https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-03-28/69573/

    Confirmation from the Scottish Government: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/barnett_consequentials_crossrail

    Unless you think both the UK and Scottish governments are talking bollocks, it is you that is I'm afraid.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    BigRich said:

    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Assuming that's correct (14% of under 40s have a long term condition) then its not killing them in large numbers, then its not killing them in large numbers there have been 157 deaths in that age catogary so far.

    Aery quick calculation:

    Approximately 30 million under 40s

    14% of 30 million is 4.2 million

    As some have estimated on here earlia we have so far had about 12% of population infected.

    12% of 4.2 million is 504,000 people,

    So if every one of those 157 deaths had a pre-existing condition that would be

    A 1 in 3,210 change of dying. or 0.03% death rate.

    Now this is a lot of estimation and may well be off, but it is such a small preposition that even if the numbers are off by a magnitude of 10 then its worth a tiny number.
    Killing 1 out of every 300 people under 40 isn't "tiny" at all.
    1 in 300, is only if the estimates are off by a factor of 10 (witch i doubt) and then only of people with pre-existing conditions, of which I would think many more die each year of there 'pre-exiting condition'
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    IanB2 said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't.
    Do we have statistics as to how many younger people who catch the virus need hospital treatment, intensive care, and ventilators? Despite their mostly recovering, there might be a significant burden on health services to achieve that.
    I had a quick root around and managed to find a paper published in The Lancet at the end of March, which summarised various data obtained from the Chinese outbreak. It included these statistical estimates for the proportion of all Covid patients hospitalised, broken down by age group:

    0-9 years: zero
    10-19 years: 0.04%
    20-29 years: 1.04%
    30-39 years: 3.43%
    40-49 years: 4.25%
    50-59 years: 8.16%
    60-69 years: 11.8%
    70-79 years: 16.6%
    80+ years: 18.4%

    Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

    These don't offer us a breakdown of the severity of the condition of those hospitalised; nonetheless, given that both hospitalisation and mortality drop quite precipitously with age, it seems to me that it's probably also fair to assume that the bulk of demand for critical care comes from the older age cohorts.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    It could all come down to Congregational district 2 in Maine, (Maine votes by congregational district as well as state wide) and this year Mane is voting by a system of ranked chose voting, which I think gets some on here exited!
    Also Nebraska which votes by congressional district
    Yes Nebraska does, but i think the Nebraska districts are all fairly solid for Trump, May be wrong. and they are not voting by ranked chose which is the more intesting thing.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,708
    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Assuming that's correct (14% of under 40s have a long term condition) then its not killing them in large numbers, then its not killing them in large numbers there have been 157 deaths in that age catogary so far.

    Aery quick calculation:

    Approximately 30 million under 40s

    14% of 30 million is 4.2 million

    As some have estimated on here earlia we have so far had about 12% of population infected.

    12% of 4.2 million is 504,000 people,

    So if every one of those 157 deaths had a pre-existing condition that would be

    A 1 in 3,210 change of dying. or 0.03% death rate.

    Now this is a lot of estimation and may well be off, but it is such a small preposition that even if the numbers are off by a magnitude of 10 then its worth a tiny number.
    Killing 1 out of every 300 people under 40 isn't "tiny" at all.
    1 in 300, is only if the estimates are off by a factor of 10 (witch i doubt) and then only of people with pre-existing conditions, of which I would think many more die each year of there 'pre-exiting condition'
    Why would you think that given that it’s statistically implausible?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited May 2020

    BigRich said:

    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Assuming that's correct (14% of under 40s have a long term condition) then its not killing them in large numbers, then its not killing them in large numbers there have been 157 deaths in that age catogary so far.

    Aery quick calculation:

    Approximately 30 million under 40s

    14% of 30 million is 4.2 million

    As some have estimated on here earlia we have so far had about 12% of population infected.

    12% of 4.2 million is 504,000 people,

    So if every one of those 157 deaths had a pre-existing condition that would be

    A 1 in 3,210 change of dying. or 0.03% death rate.

    Now this is a lot of estimation and may well be off, but it is such a small preposition that even if the numbers are off by a magnitude of 10 then its worth a tiny number.
    Killing 1 out of every 300 people under 40 isn't "tiny" at all.
    I think its one in 300 for those with a pre existing condition.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    Wrong. The house vote doesn't work the way you think it does. It needs a majority of states. It has a built-in republican majority.
    Even so currently 23 states have a Democratic majority in terms of Representatives with 1 tie, so only needs 3 more states for a Democratic majority of states overall
    I think its the existing Congress that votes, not the new one. but happy to be fact checked, could be wrong.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,139
    edited May 2020
    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    It could all come down to Congregational district 2 in Maine, (Maine votes by congregational district as well as state wide) and this year Mane is voting by a system of ranked chose voting, which I think gets some on here exited!
    Also Nebraska which votes by congressional district
    Yes Nebraska does, but i think the Nebraska districts are all fairly solid for Trump, May be wrong. and they are not voting by ranked chose which is the more intesting thing.
    1 extra Nebraska vote plus Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states would be enough (or Wisconsin instead of the Nebraska delegate).

    Nebraska's 2nd District only voted for Trump by 2.24% in 2016, Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all voted for Trump by less than 1%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,149
    HYUFD said:
    Scrapped seems an extreme decision even in that situation.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    BigRich said:

    BigRich said:

    Alistair said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't. Cruelly, it goes for those who are both aged and infirm.
    14% of under 40s have a long term condition.
    Assuming that's correct (14% of under 40s have a long term condition) then its not killing them in large numbers, then its not killing them in large numbers there have been 157 deaths in that age catogary so far.

    Aery quick calculation:

    Approximately 30 million under 40s

    14% of 30 million is 4.2 million

    As some have estimated on here earlia we have so far had about 12% of population infected.

    12% of 4.2 million is 504,000 people,

    So if every one of those 157 deaths had a pre-existing condition that would be

    A 1 in 3,210 change of dying. or 0.03% death rate.

    Now this is a lot of estimation and may well be off, but it is such a small preposition that even if the numbers are off by a magnitude of 10 then its worth a tiny number.
    Killing 1 out of every 300 people under 40 isn't "tiny" at all.
    1 in 300, is only if the estimates are off by a factor of 10 (witch i doubt) and then only of people with pre-existing conditions, of which I would think many more die each year of there 'pre-exiting condition'
    Why would you think that given that it’s statistically implausible?
    Sorry, I don't think I understand your question.

    I think its unlikely that all of the 157 deaths of people under 40 had pre-exiting conditions.

    I think its unlikely that the my estimations are off by a factor of 10,

    but I'm not saying anything is 'statistically implacable'. but happy to enplane any of my thinking if that helps.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Scrapped seems an extreme decision even in that situation.
    I thought that more than 17% wanted them scraped anyway?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    TimT said:

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Wuhan lab virus hunters actively go out into the field and collect 20,000 wild type bat coronaviruses from large bat colonies in caves, then selectively work on those closest to making the zoonotic jump to humans, and even do gain of function work on these viruses. Then they have lots of unreported LAIs (lab acquired infections) with such viruses, one of which happens to permit human to human transmission, which then occurs both inside and outside the lab before its impact is known.
    Case 4: Wuhan lab researches a Coronavirus outbreak that has already started and something goes wrong.

    Case 5: (By far the most likely) Wuhan lab has absolutely nothing to do with Covid-19. The virology and epidemiology apparently fit perfectly to how every other epidemic happens naturally and there is no specific reason to link Wuhan lab to this epidemic.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    It could all come down to Congregational district 2 in Maine, (Maine votes by congregational district as well as state wide) and this year Mane is voting by a system of ranked chose voting, which I think gets some on here exited!
    Also Nebraska which votes by congressional district
    Yes Nebraska does, but i think the Nebraska districts are all fairly solid for Trump, May be wrong. and they are not voting by ranked chose which is the more intesting thing.
    1 extra Nebraska vote plus Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states would be enough (or Wisconsin instead of the Nebraska delegate)
    Yes, good point, agreed.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    edited May 2020
    World Rugby kinda indicates where professional sport is headed towards until there's a vaccine.

    Elite rugby matches are likely to be played behind closed doors until an effective coronavirus vaccine is freely available, according to guidelines released by World Rugby.

    The document, compiled by World Rugby’s leading medical experts, raises the possibility of the autumn Tests, next year’s Six Nations and even the British & Irish Lions tour of South Africa being played in empty stadiums or in front of radically reduced attendances.

    The guidelines also advise that no competitive matches should even take place until governments allow gatherings of 250 people, casting major doubt on the completion of the 2019-20 Premiership season.


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/04/world-rugby-guidelines-advise-behind-closed-doors-tests-until-vaccine-found
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Just back from my daily walk. Vastly more people out and about than at any point in the last six weeks - at least five times as many as last week. Based on comments here, seems like we're a bit behind some parts of the country, but pretty clearly lockdown is wearing thin.

    I said earlier that the proportion of mask wearers I was seeing was about 50%. Way down today - consistent with the theory that very few British people intend on wearing them. Proportion of mask wearers not wearing them properly - still about 25%.

    One oddity is the number of couples where only one of them is wearing a mask. No idea what that means, but possibly even among those who do wear them, they don't see it as particularly important? I suspect that they are under the impression that it helps them prevent getting the virus, rather than (mainly) help stop transmission. In which case, there's unlikely to be much social pressure to comply if it becomes a requirement.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FF43 said:

    TimT said:

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Wuhan lab virus hunters actively go out into the field and collect 20,000 wild type bat coronaviruses from large bat colonies in caves, then selectively work on those closest to making the zoonotic jump to humans, and even do gain of function work on these viruses. Then they have lots of unreported LAIs (lab acquired infections) with such viruses, one of which happens to permit human to human transmission, which then occurs both inside and outside the lab before its impact is known.
    Case 4: Wuhan lab researches a Coronavirus outbreak that has already started and something goes wrong.

    Case 5: (By far the most likely) Wuhan lab has absolutely nothing to do with Covid-19. The virology and epidemiology apparently fit perfectly to how every other epidemic happens naturally and there is no specific reason to link Wuhan lab to this epidemic.
    Isn't that case 1?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    IanB2 said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't.
    Do we have statistics as to how many younger people who catch the virus need hospital treatment, intensive care, and ventilators? Despite their mostly recovering, there might be a significant burden on health services to achieve that.
    I had a quick root around and managed to find a paper published in The Lancet at the end of March, which summarised various data obtained from the Chinese outbreak. It included these statistical estimates for the proportion of all Covid patients hospitalised, broken down by age group:

    0-9 years: zero
    10-19 years: 0.04%
    20-29 years: 1.04%
    30-39 years: 3.43%
    40-49 years: 4.25%
    50-59 years: 8.16%
    60-69 years: 11.8%
    70-79 years: 16.6%
    80+ years: 18.4%

    Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

    These don't offer us a breakdown of the severity of the condition of those hospitalised; nonetheless, given that both hospitalisation and mortality drop quite precipitously with age, it seems to me that it's probably also fair to assume that the bulk of demand for critical care comes from the older age cohorts.
    A lot less than 100% in that sample
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeL said:

    Such a shame the rule isn't that you can't win more than two Presidential terms in a row.

    Surely the point is to prevent an incumbent going on and on - as an incumbent has an advantage in an election.

    It would also be great as a spectacle with Presidents going head to head.

    We would have had Bush v Clinton in 2004 (*) and Trump v Obama in 2020.

    (*) Clinton would have fought an election against a father and his son!

    I think Obama would have beaten Trump to get a third term and Clinton would have beaten Bush to get a third term and Reagan would definitely have beaten Dukakis to get a third term, however Obama would probably have beaten Bush in 2008 anyway so he would only have got the 2 terms.

    However even the best leaders should stop at 10 years, Blair leaving in 2007 was the best thing to happen to him, Thatcher should have gone in 1989 rather than being forced out in tears in 1990 by Heseltine' s leadership challenge
    Didn't the Chinese enforce leadership changes every 10 years for a few decades, pre Xi (post Mao obviously), presumably on a similar principle?
    China had quite a clever system, which was to elect a new Vice President at the same time as the President coming to office. This acted as a protection for the president as the succession was secured. Anyone wanting to get ahead would know who the successor was and can rally to him. At the same time the successor wouldn't rock the boat because he would know he was getting the job in a set time.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,914

    Oh i can see problems...

    Apparently to get the tracking app, people are being sent special instructions, but the apps are on the app stores (just hidden)

    While in theory there is nothing to prevent the details being shared and used by others elsewhere, NHSX hopes this will not happen as it could confuse the feedback it receives.

    Some twat is going to tweet the instructions aren't they.

    I don’t understand what the problem is. Can’t they just filter the location data so they’re only working with data from the Isle of White?
    It's Isle of Wight.
    Wight meant, among other things, a human being.
    So, it's really the Isle Of Man.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    Endillion said:

    Just back from my daily walk. Vastly more people out and about than at any point in the last six weeks - at least five times as many as last week. Based on comments here, seems like we're a bit behind some parts of the country, but pretty clearly lockdown is wearing thin.

    I said earlier that the proportion of mask wearers I was seeing was about 50%. Way down today - consistent with the theory that very few British people intend on wearing them. Proportion of mask wearers not wearing them properly - still about 25%.

    One oddity is the number of couples where only one of them is wearing a mask. No idea what that means, but possibly even among those who do wear them, they don't see it as particularly important? I suspect that they are under the impression that it helps them prevent getting the virus, rather than (mainly) help stop transmission. In which case, there's unlikely to be much social pressure to comply if it becomes a requirement.

    Possibly one half of the couple has some sort of pre-existent condition, and is there for taking any extra easy step to help?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    /twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    15k excessive deaths in 1 month in Lombardy alone. That's what happens when your healthcare system crashes I think NY will be similarly off the charts.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,837
    BigRich said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Scrapped seems an extreme decision even in that situation.
    I thought that more than 17% wanted them scraped anyway?
    They do! Which shows exactly how pointless opinion polling is on a subject people have not really thought about. The phrasing of the question and the last couple of days news have a completely disproportionate impact.

    It is a terrible basis to derive policy from the snippets of polling.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    FF43 said:

    TimT said:

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Wuhan lab virus hunters actively go out into the field and collect 20,000 wild type bat coronaviruses from large bat colonies in caves, then selectively work on those closest to making the zoonotic jump to humans, and even do gain of function work on these viruses. Then they have lots of unreported LAIs (lab acquired infections) with such viruses, one of which happens to permit human to human transmission, which then occurs both inside and outside the lab before its impact is known.
    Case 4: Wuhan lab researches a Coronavirus outbreak that has already started and something goes wrong.

    Case 5: (By far the most likely) Wuhan lab has absolutely nothing to do with Covid-19. The virology and epidemiology apparently fit perfectly to how every other epidemic happens naturally and there is no specific reason to link Wuhan lab to this epidemic.
    Isn't that case 1?
    Probably not. One thing we do know by epidemiology is that Covid-19 didn't start with the Wuhan meat market. It was already a month old by then and possibly didn't originate in Wuhan.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    And those Chinese numbers.....just 4,000 dead, despite letting this thing run wild for 3 months.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,601

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    And those Chinese numbers.....just 4,000 dead, despite letting this thing run wild for 3 months.
    Also, zero deaths in Vietnam despite being a country of 100 million next door to China.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    Given the similar scenes in Madrid to Lombardy (and we already hearing these cases of care homes just being abandoned), have to presume significant upward revisions.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 757
    Thank god no-ones shown up with a first edition of Golfing for Cats by Alan Coren on their bookshelves.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,914

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Poor hygiene leads to an employee getting infected in the lab. Passes on the virus via human to human transmission at the wet market.

    Given "patient zero" has never been identified that seems quite plausible.
    No, Robert has most likley got it right, him and Occam.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900


    15k excessive deaths in 1 month in Lombardy alone. That's what happens when your healthcare system crashes I think NY will be similarly off the charts.

    The FT did a few graphs on this: NYC + 387% excess mortality, Bergamo +463%, Guayaquil +487%. NY's data is earlier in their peak though, so it'll probably surpass both.

    These three so far seem to be far worse than anywhere else - eg London is +124%, with our epidemic much more spread out.


  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Poor hygiene leads to an employee getting infected in the lab. Passes on the virus via human to human transmission at the wet market.

    Given "patient zero" has never been identified that seems quite plausible.
    I think your case 3 is the most plausible, could even be the initial infection was from someone collecting the bats for the lab given the picture I saw somewhere this morning where they were doing so in a cave with very little protective gear.

    I think the fact that "patient zero" hasn't been identified points towards someone connected to the lab rather than a punter in the wet market.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Scrapped seems an extreme decision even in that situation.
    Of course a lot of people think tuition fees should be scrapped or reduced even before all this.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    /twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    15k excessive deaths in 1 month in Lombardy alone. That's what happens when your healthcare system crashes I think NY will be similarly off the charts.
    That's why I think the "lockdown makes no difference" people are incorrect. We have seen in NY and Lombardy how out of control this can go if left completely unchecked.

    That being said, it's entirely possible that the virus can be contained with far less collateral damage by implementing measures such as mask wearing early on.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    Yes.

    The reality is that we've done a lot better than Italy and Spain, and are probably somewhere between France and Germany.

    Now, could we have done *even* better? Yes, of course. But the idea our performance has been disastrous is for the birds.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,482
    I really cannot see any reason to hide a book. Book burnings is surely what 'they' go in for?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    Too early to say, given that our figures are now rising faster than theirs.

    We did however avoid the Italian crisis by having our cases spread more evenly across the country and through time.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    IanB2 said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't.
    Do we have statistics as to how many younger people who catch the virus need hospital treatment, intensive care, and ventilators? Despite their mostly recovering, there might be a significant burden on health services to achieve that.
    I had a quick root around and managed to find a paper published in The Lancet at the end of March, which summarised various data obtained from the Chinese outbreak. It included these statistical estimates for the proportion of all Covid patients hospitalised, broken down by age group:

    0-9 years: zero
    10-19 years: 0.04%
    20-29 years: 1.04%
    30-39 years: 3.43%
    40-49 years: 4.25%
    50-59 years: 8.16%
    60-69 years: 11.8%
    70-79 years: 16.6%
    80+ years: 18.4%

    Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

    These don't offer us a breakdown of the severity of the condition of those hospitalised; nonetheless, given that both hospitalisation and mortality drop quite precipitously with age, it seems to me that it's probably also fair to assume that the bulk of demand for critical care comes from the older age cohorts.
    Interesting data, thanks.

    Boris did much worse than his age cohort, then.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,602
    edited May 2020

    World Rugby kinda indicates where professional sport is headed towards until there's a vaccine.

    Elite rugby matches are likely to be played behind closed doors until an effective coronavirus vaccine is freely available, according to guidelines released by World Rugby.

    The document, compiled by World Rugby’s leading medical experts, raises the possibility of the autumn Tests, next year’s Six Nations and even the British & Irish Lions tour of South Africa being played in empty stadiums or in front of radically reduced attendances.

    The guidelines also advise that no competitive matches should even take place until governments allow gatherings of 250 people, casting major doubt on the completion of the 2019-20 Premiership season.


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/04/world-rugby-guidelines-advise-behind-closed-doors-tests-until-vaccine-found

    The Premier League reckons 300-350 in attendance for a behind closed doors football match (plus any police outside), F1 think it's 1,000-1,500 required for a closed race - including around a hundred doctors.

    Looks increasingly like Liverpool might have to wait a few months longer for the season to play out - but hey, we've waited 30 years for it!

    We're all going to be watching (and betting on!) some unusual sports this summer, that's for sure.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    Oh i can see problems...

    Apparently to get the tracking app, people are being sent special instructions, but the apps are on the app stores (just hidden)

    While in theory there is nothing to prevent the details being shared and used by others elsewhere, NHSX hopes this will not happen as it could confuse the feedback it receives.

    Some twat is going to tweet the instructions aren't they.

    I don’t understand what the problem is. Can’t they just filter the location data so they’re only working with data from the Isle of White?
    It's Isle of Wight.
    Wight meant, among other things, a human being.
    So, it's really the Isle Of Man.
    We get the app on Thursday, apparently.

    I am not sure there is a downside from people on north island downloading the app ahead of time, provided they don’t give a false island address.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    Sandpit said:

    World Rugby kinda indicates where professional sport is headed towards until there's a vaccine.

    Elite rugby matches are likely to be played behind closed doors until an effective coronavirus vaccine is freely available, according to guidelines released by World Rugby.

    The document, compiled by World Rugby’s leading medical experts, raises the possibility of the autumn Tests, next year’s Six Nations and even the British & Irish Lions tour of South Africa being played in empty stadiums or in front of radically reduced attendances.

    The guidelines also advise that no competitive matches should even take place until governments allow gatherings of 250 people, casting major doubt on the completion of the 2019-20 Premiership season.


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/04/world-rugby-guidelines-advise-behind-closed-doors-tests-until-vaccine-found

    The Premier League reckons 300-350 in attendance for a behind closed doors football match (plus any police outside), F1 think it's 1,000-1,500 required for a closed race - including around a hundred doctors.

    Looks increasingly like Liverpool might have to wait a few months longer for the season to play out - but hey, we've waited 30 years for it!
    What's the point of having a few 100 attending?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,601
    Highest figure anywhere in Europe today: 306 in France.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    IanB2 said:

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    Too early to say, given that our figures are now rising faster than theirs.

    We did however avoid the Italian crisis by having our cases spread more evenly across the country and through time.
    I din't think its too early to tell, the damage has been done in Italy. Those April figures when they get published are going to be awful.

    We are entering our tail now and they are further along with theirs but our tail being slightly higher day for day than theirs isn't going to make up the damage they had already.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,878

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Poor hygiene leads to an employee getting infected in the lab. Passes on the virus via human to human transmission at the wet market.

    Given "patient zero" has never been identified that seems quite plausible.
    No, Robert has most likley got it right, him and Occam.
    How do you know?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    edited May 2020

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    For comparison, here's the preposterous bullshit. Updated figures for England coming out tomorrow, I think.

    Edit. Italy figures are partial, so not comparable.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1256311502744752140
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,259
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't.
    Do we have statistics as to how many younger people who catch the virus need hospital treatment, intensive care, and ventilators? Despite their mostly recovering, there might be a significant burden on health services to achieve that.
    I had a quick root around and managed to find a paper published in The Lancet at the end of March, which summarised various data obtained from the Chinese outbreak. It included these statistical estimates for the proportion of all Covid patients hospitalised, broken down by age group:

    0-9 years: zero
    10-19 years: 0.04%
    20-29 years: 1.04%
    30-39 years: 3.43%
    40-49 years: 4.25%
    50-59 years: 8.16%
    60-69 years: 11.8%
    70-79 years: 16.6%
    80+ years: 18.4%

    Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

    These don't offer us a breakdown of the severity of the condition of those hospitalised; nonetheless, given that both hospitalisation and mortality drop quite precipitously with age, it seems to me that it's probably also fair to assume that the bulk of demand for critical care comes from the older age cohorts.
    Interesting data, thanks.

    Boris did much worse than his age cohort, then.
    Not really. He was just on the wrong end of a one in twelve chance. And attempting to work through it probably didn't help.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,878

    Oh i can see problems...

    Apparently to get the tracking app, people are being sent special instructions, but the apps are on the app stores (just hidden)

    While in theory there is nothing to prevent the details being shared and used by others elsewhere, NHSX hopes this will not happen as it could confuse the feedback it receives.

    Some twat is going to tweet the instructions aren't they.

    I don’t understand what the problem is. Can’t they just filter the location data so they’re only working with data from the Isle of White?
    It's Isle of Wight.
    Wight meant, among other things, a human being.
    So, it's really the Isle Of Man.
    Amongst other things, also a member of the undead!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wight
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    Wrong. The house vote doesn't work the way you think it does. It needs a majority of states. It has a built-in republican majority.
    Even so currently 23 states have a Democratic majority in terms of Representatives with 1 tie, so only needs 3 more states for a Democratic majority of states overall
    I think its the existing Congress that votes, not the new one. but happy to be fact checked, could be wrong.
    No, it's the incoming Congress which holds the contingent election. This is a result of the 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933, which brought forward the start of the Congressional and Presidential terms from March to January.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862

    DavidL said:

    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.
    so four million workers when you add the extra universal credit claims right? is that really much better than the US proportionally?

    I would say given the government's dithering, which is killing the economy more every single day, 2m out of that six is a very conservative estimate.

    But we shall see.
    America's population is roughly 6x ours. So 30m job losses is equivalent to 5m unemployed here. And the situation in the US will get worse. We are heading for 3-4m unemployed in the short term. Way, way better than the US but not great.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    Great thread header @rcs1000, many thanks.

    Cock-up is always a safer bet than conspiracy.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,878
    edited May 2020
    FF43 said:


    Case 5: (By far the most likely) Wuhan lab has absolutely nothing to do with Covid-19.

    How do you know?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FF43 said:

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    For comparison, here's the preposterous bullshit. Updated figures for England coming out tomorrow, I think

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1256311502744752140
    Indeed our figures are much more up to date and show us +50% - Italy's are massively out of date (even with today's release) and show them at +90%

    Preposterous.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,602
    edited May 2020

    Sandpit said:

    World Rugby kinda indicates where professional sport is headed towards until there's a vaccine.

    Elite rugby matches are likely to be played behind closed doors until an effective coronavirus vaccine is freely available, according to guidelines released by World Rugby.

    The document, compiled by World Rugby’s leading medical experts, raises the possibility of the autumn Tests, next year’s Six Nations and even the British & Irish Lions tour of South Africa being played in empty stadiums or in front of radically reduced attendances.

    The guidelines also advise that no competitive matches should even take place until governments allow gatherings of 250 people, casting major doubt on the completion of the 2019-20 Premiership season.


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/04/world-rugby-guidelines-advise-behind-closed-doors-tests-until-vaccine-found

    The Premier League reckons 300-350 in attendance for a behind closed doors football match (plus any police outside), F1 think it's 1,000-1,500 required for a closed race - including around a hundred doctors.

    Looks increasingly like Liverpool might have to wait a few months longer for the season to play out - but hey, we've waited 30 years for it!
    What's the point of having a few 100 attending?
    That's the numbers required to actually put on the event to the required standard, with no spectators present.

    Will include the competitors and their support staff, officials and their technical teams, medics, sanctioning body overseers, television and radio production teams, other media, ground staff (ballboys, marshals), cleaners and other clerical workers etc. It all adds up quickly!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454

    Sandpit said:

    World Rugby kinda indicates where professional sport is headed towards until there's a vaccine.

    Elite rugby matches are likely to be played behind closed doors until an effective coronavirus vaccine is freely available, according to guidelines released by World Rugby.

    The document, compiled by World Rugby’s leading medical experts, raises the possibility of the autumn Tests, next year’s Six Nations and even the British & Irish Lions tour of South Africa being played in empty stadiums or in front of radically reduced attendances.

    The guidelines also advise that no competitive matches should even take place until governments allow gatherings of 250 people, casting major doubt on the completion of the 2019-20 Premiership season.


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/04/world-rugby-guidelines-advise-behind-closed-doors-tests-until-vaccine-found

    The Premier League reckons 300-350 in attendance for a behind closed doors football match (plus any police outside), F1 think it's 1,000-1,500 required for a closed race - including around a hundred doctors.

    Looks increasingly like Liverpool might have to wait a few months longer for the season to play out - but hey, we've waited 30 years for it!
    What's the point of having a few 100 attending?
    Thats various crews, I assume - not true spectators?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    rpjs said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?

    Latest polling has Biden doing better in Michigan and Pennsylvania than nationally, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the Hillary states gives him 269 EC votes and the Presidency as the Democratic controlled house is the decider in a tie. So not impossible Trump wins the popular vote and Biden the EC in a reverse of 2016

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256779250000158720?s=20
    Wrong. The house vote doesn't work the way you think it does. It needs a majority of states. It has a built-in republican majority.
    Even so currently 23 states have a Democratic majority in terms of Representatives with 1 tie, so only needs 3 more states for a Democratic majority of states overall
    I think its the existing Congress that votes, not the new one. but happy to be fact checked, could be wrong.
    No, it's the incoming Congress which holds the contingent election. This is a result of the 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933, which brought forward the start of the Congressional and Presidential terms from March to January.
    Like a man in orthopaedic shoos, I stand corrected
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,878

    Might incline me to watch a Star Wars dead horse being flogged, might not.

    https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1257345002654621697?s=20

    Disney Star Wars is unmitigated crap - aside from Captain Corelli's Mandalorian, allegedly (not seen it!).
  • glwglw Posts: 9,908
    I simply do not understand what is going on in America.

    The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.

    As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of cases and deaths from the coronavirus over the next several weeks, reaching about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double from the current level of about 1,750.

    The projections, based on government modeling pulled together in chart form by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forecast about 200,000 new cases each day by the end of the month, up from about 25,000 cases now.

    The numbers underscore a sobering reality: While the United States has been hunkered down for the past seven weeks, significant risks remain. And the reopening to the economy will make matters worse.

    “There remains a large number of counties whose burden continues to grow,” the Centers for Disease Control warned.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/coronavirus-updates.html
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,354

    IanB2 said:

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    Too early to say, given that our figures are now rising faster than theirs.

    We did however avoid the Italian crisis by having our cases spread more evenly across the country and through time.
    I din't think its too early to tell, the damage has been done in Italy. Those April figures when they get published are going to be awful.

    We are entering our tail now and they are further along with theirs but our tail being slightly higher day for day than theirs isn't going to make up the damage they had already.
    I like Bill Gates' comment that you have to wait until it's all over before you can assess how each country did, but it is unlikely any will get an A+.

    Maybe he might have qualified that if he'd known about NZ but even so I think he's got it about right. My guess is we'll feature in the mid-range, Italy likewise.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720
    philiph said:

    IanB2 said:

    They really aren't mind-blowing, Laura. They are the consequence of a pandemic that risked killing at least 500,000 of us if we just shrugged and said "Meh - I'm off down the pub...."
    According to Ferguson's model.

    Others seem to be available.
    'Us' is a complete misnomer. NHS England figures show that if you are healthy and under 60 the risks really are extremely small. 250 people with no other conditions have died between 0 and 60.

    even for healthy people up to 80 its under 1000.

    We may think we are in this together but the virus absolutely doesn't.
    Do we have statistics as to how many younger people who catch the virus need hospital treatment, intensive care, and ventilators? Despite their mostly recovering, there might be a significant burden on health services to achieve that.
    I had a quick root around and managed to find a paper published in The Lancet at the end of March, which summarised various data obtained from the Chinese outbreak. It included these statistical estimates for the proportion of all Covid patients hospitalised, broken down by age group:

    0-9 years: zero
    10-19 years: 0.04%
    20-29 years: 1.04%
    30-39 years: 3.43%
    40-49 years: 4.25%
    50-59 years: 8.16%
    60-69 years: 11.8%
    70-79 years: 16.6%
    80+ years: 18.4%

    Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

    These don't offer us a breakdown of the severity of the condition of those hospitalised; nonetheless, given that both hospitalisation and mortality drop quite precipitously with age, it seems to me that it's probably also fair to assume that the bulk of demand for critical care comes from the older age cohorts.
    A lot less than 100% in that sample
    I think percentage of each band that needed hospitalisation outside isolation units.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,878
    mwadams said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Fantastic news.

    Taika Waititi Confirmed To Direct New Star Wars Movie

    It’s May the 4th, and Disney wants to make all your dreams come true: Taika Waititi is officially making a new Star Wars movie. As confirmed by Disney and LucasFilm, the Kiwi filmmaker, fresh from helming the final episode of The Mandalorian Season 1, will be cooking up something else in the galaxy far, far away for the big screen – adding to his long, long list of upcoming projects.

    https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/taika-waititi-confirmed-to-direct-new-star-wars-movie/

    Disney Star Wars is dire crap, apart from Captain Corelli's Mandalorian, allegedly.
    Mando > any of the last Skywalker films.
    Agreed. Rogue One was also a good film, though. And they are all 30 million times better than Ep I-III.
    The prequels were far better then the Disney sequels. But even Rogue One has several issues.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    IanB2 said:

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    Too early to say, given that our figures are now rising faster than theirs.

    We did however avoid the Italian crisis by having our cases spread more evenly across the country and through time.
    I din't think its too early to tell, the damage has been done in Italy. Those April figures when they get published are going to be awful.

    We are entering our tail now and they are further along with theirs but our tail being slightly higher day for day than theirs isn't going to make up the damage they had already.
    I like Bill Gates' comment that you have to wait until it's all over before you can assess how each country did, but it is unlikely any will get an A+.

    Maybe he might have qualified that if he'd known about NZ but even so I think he's got it about right. My guess is we'll feature in the mid-range, Italy likewise.
    South Africa is another nation doing surprisingly well. They've not been getting much attention or credit. People I know from South Africa are uncharacteristically impressed with SA's response.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    World Rugby kinda indicates where professional sport is headed towards until there's a vaccine.

    Elite rugby matches are likely to be played behind closed doors until an effective coronavirus vaccine is freely available, according to guidelines released by World Rugby.

    The document, compiled by World Rugby’s leading medical experts, raises the possibility of the autumn Tests, next year’s Six Nations and even the British & Irish Lions tour of South Africa being played in empty stadiums or in front of radically reduced attendances.

    The guidelines also advise that no competitive matches should even take place until governments allow gatherings of 250 people, casting major doubt on the completion of the 2019-20 Premiership season.


    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/may/04/world-rugby-guidelines-advise-behind-closed-doors-tests-until-vaccine-found

    The Premier League reckons 300-350 in attendance for a behind closed doors football match (plus any police outside), F1 think it's 1,000-1,500 required for a closed race - including around a hundred doctors.

    Looks increasingly like Liverpool might have to wait a few months longer for the season to play out - but hey, we've waited 30 years for it!
    What's the point of having a few 100 attending?
    That's the numbers required to actually put on the event to the required standard, with no spectators present.

    Will include the competitors and their support staff, officials and their technical teams, medics, sanctioning body overseers, television and radio production teams, other media, ground staff (ballboys, marshals), cleaners and other clerical workers etc. It all adds up quickly!
    Oh i thought they meant in addition to that.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    FF43 said:

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    For comparison, here's the preposterous bullshit. Updated figures for England coming out tomorrow, I think.

    Edit. Italy figures are partial, so not comparable.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1256311502744752140
    I don't really understand how these baselines are possible:

    - Italy has a population basically the same as the UK and similar demographics - yet it usually has less than half as many weekly deaths?
    - Germany is 20% bigger than France/UK but has nearly twice as many weekly deaths?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,695
    edited May 2020
    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 1: an individual farmer selling an idividual infected bat has to be unlucky but something tells me there are lots of farmers and even more bats.

    Both cases rely on at least one infected bat so let's assume that's a given. How much more likely is it that 'said bat is sold on the Wuhan market' than 'said bat is collected by the Wuhan lab, stolen by a disgruntled employee, and sold on the Wuhan market'?

    Just wanting it to be so doesn't make it true.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Endillion said:


    - Italy has a population basically the same as the UK and similar demographics - yet it usually has less than half as many weekly deaths?

    That's part of Italy - I think as of today they now have whole of Italy stats so will update the page.

    Dunno what's going on with German stats though.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 3: Poor hygiene leads to an employee getting infected in the lab. Passes on the virus via human to human transmission at the wet market.

    Given "patient zero" has never been identified that seems quite plausible.
    No, Robert has most likley got it right, him and Occam.
    Robert rejects three "assumptions" on the basis of Occam.

    – The Wuhan lab was investigating these kinds of viruses
    – There was a bat who had this kind of virus
    – Said bat escaped or was stolen, and this then made its way to a wet market

    The first and second are not assumptions, it is known for certain that the lab specialised in bat coronaviruses. The second was the first thought of the head researcher at the lab when she first heard about the virus. The third is not required by the escape theory at all.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    glw said:

    I simply do not understand what is going on in America.

    The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.

    As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of cases and deaths from the coronavirus over the next several weeks, reaching about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double from the current level of about 1,750.

    The projections, based on government modeling pulled together in chart form by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forecast about 200,000 new cases each day by the end of the month, up from about 25,000 cases now.

    The numbers underscore a sobering reality: While the United States has been hunkered down for the past seven weeks, significant risks remain. And the reopening to the economy will make matters worse.

    “There remains a large number of counties whose burden continues to grow,” the Centers for Disease Control warned.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/coronavirus-updates.html
    We saw this coming.

    America has lots of societal advantages over Europe - its a much more socially distant country naturally and has much fewer reliance on public transport - but USA will probably overtake Europe in deaths before very long.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,036
    Shout going out to Ethical Superstore. Delivered us a bumper supply of bog roll.

    Happy wiping for months to come.

  • Endillion said:

    FF43 said:

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    For comparison, here's the preposterous bullshit. Updated figures for England coming out tomorrow, I think.

    Edit. Italy figures are partial, so not comparable.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1256311502744752140
    I don't really understand how these baselines are possible:

    - Italy has a population basically the same as the UK and similar demographics - yet it usually has less than half as many weekly deaths?
    - Germany is 20% bigger than France/UK but has nearly twice as many weekly deaths?
    Italy is explained in the footnote - i.e. that data is only available for part of the country.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,225
    Interesting, reported in the Guardian...

    ... French hospital discovers Covid-19 case from December. The hospital retested old samples from pneumonia patients and discovered that it treated a man who had Covid-19 as early as 27 December, nearly a month before the French government confirmed its first cases....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Endillion said:

    FF43 said:

    Andrew said:

    Not really a surprise tbh, but still really ugly news. That's double the official tolls.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1257371748955275270

    Confirms what anyone sane knew which is the UK has performed much, much better than Italy and the idea that the UK was "worst in Europe" was completely preposterous bullshit.

    Given the scenes of devastation in Italy with hospitals collapsing haven't been seen in this country it should have been obvious to anyone who doesn't hate this country and its government and want us to do badly.
    For comparison, here's the preposterous bullshit. Updated figures for England coming out tomorrow, I think.

    Edit. Italy figures are partial, so not comparable.

    https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1256311502744752140
    I don't really understand how these baselines are possible:

    - Italy has a population basically the same as the UK and similar demographics - yet it usually has less than half as many weekly deaths?
    - Germany is 20% bigger than France/UK but has nearly twice as many weekly deaths?
    Depends upon seasonality. Eventually 100% of people die but rate deaths are not the same all year round.

    Italy has 17k flu deaths per annum compared to us getting about 6k, despite comparable levels of population. If Italian oldies die more in flu season then that leaves fewer to die later in the year.

    Just a hypothesis.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    Andy_JS said:

    Highest figure anywhere in Europe today: 306 in France.

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

    Possibly the best way to look at it is the "are we there yet?" test - proportion of new deaths to total deaths. So USA is 1:13, Russia is 1:20, France 1:75, UK and Belgium 1:100, Italy and Spain 1:150, Germany 1:240, Austria 1:300. On that basis that's a lot more coming in the US and Russia, most of the others clearly over the peak.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    edited May 2020
    Andrew said:

    Endillion said:


    - Italy has a population basically the same as the UK and similar demographics - yet it usually has less than half as many weekly deaths?

    That's part of Italy - I think as of today they now have whole of Italy stats so will update the page.

    Dunno what's going on with German stats though.
    Ah, yes, thanks. Just saw the footnote myself.

    Germany: figures could be legitimate. They get ~900k deaths per year, which is ~50% higher than France/UK. Possibly demographics due to an aging population, partially due to fewer economic migrants lowering the average age? Still doesn't look quite right. I can't quite tie up 900k annual deaths with what looks like a weekly average of ~19k but it's not a long way off.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,370
    It's worth remembering that most students don't bother with student politics - so it gets taken over by nutters.

    At my uni it was thus - every now and then they would do something stupid enough to trigger the sleeping majority. Who would turn up at a meeting in a few hundreds to overwhelm the usual 25 voting clowns.....
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Endillion said:


    Germany: figures could be legitimate. They get ~900k deaths per year, which is ~50% higher than France/UK. Possibly demographics due to an aging population, partially due to fewer economic migrants lowering the average age? Still doesn't look quite right. I can't quite tie up 900k annual deaths with what looks like a weekly average of ~19k but it's not a long way off.

    Looks like one German year had a particularly brutal flu season - you can see it on the chart in a lighter colour. Not sure that has knock-on effects on the average/baseline throughout the year though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,602

    glw said:

    I simply do not understand what is going on in America.

    The Trump administration projects about 3,000 daily deaths by early June.

    As President Trump presses for states to reopen their economies, his administration is privately projecting a steady rise in the number of cases and deaths from the coronavirus over the next several weeks, reaching about 3,000 daily deaths on June 1, according to an internal document obtained by The New York Times, nearly double from the current level of about 1,750.

    The projections, based on government modeling pulled together in chart form by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forecast about 200,000 new cases each day by the end of the month, up from about 25,000 cases now.

    The numbers underscore a sobering reality: While the United States has been hunkered down for the past seven weeks, significant risks remain. And the reopening to the economy will make matters worse.

    “There remains a large number of counties whose burden continues to grow,” the Centers for Disease Control warned.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/coronavirus-updates.html
    We saw this coming.

    America has lots of societal advantages over Europe - its a much more socially distant country naturally and has much fewer reliance on public transport - but USA will probably overtake Europe in deaths before very long.
    On the other hand:

    They're also one of the most individualistic societies on Earth, with little social protection and huge distrust of the many disjointed layers of government. Healthcare provision is very good in places, but can be patchy with many people falling through cracks in the system. Their large cities, where most of the cases are occurring, are very densely populated by Western standards.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Charles said:

    Actually Robert, I think it’s highly likely the Wuhan lab was implicated

    Case 1: unlucky farmer sells infected bat to wet market and it somehow cross contaminates a shopper

    Case 2: lab collects lots of specimens of infected bats near the wet market. An underpaid employee illicitly sells some (probably multiple over time) bats to the market. One of them cross contaminates a shopper

    Basically case 1 you have to be really unlucky. Case 2 you have lots of shots on goal.

    Case 1: an individual farmer selling an idividual infected bat has to be unlucky but something tells me there are lots of farmers and even more bats.

    Both cases rely on at least one infected bat so let's assume that's a given. How much more likely is it that 'said bat is sold on the Wuhan market' than 'said bat is collected by the Wuhan lab, stolen by a disgruntled employee, and sold on the Wuhan market'?

    Just wanting it to be so doesn't make it true.
    It is a numbers question, and we don't have any of the numbers. Are 100 bats sold at the market every day, or 1,000, or 10,000? I can't even guess which might be right. And the escape theory doesn't rely on the unlikely-sounding theft of a bat (would anyone stupid enough to do that be working in a lab in the first place?) |Much more likely that someone gets accidentally infected in the lab and exports just the virus, not the bat. (We don't even know, unless you do, whether you keep live bats in a virology institue or just harvest the viruses and diuspose of the bat).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,533
    HYUFD said:
    For once, not much difference by age or class. Political preference does make a difference, but far from unanimous either way.
This discussion has been closed.