You've got to give Johnson credit for caving in quickly and not letting this become a bigger issue.
Yep. Theresa May would not have done this. Johnson has done the right thing.
Starmer has developed quite an interesting tactic at PMQs. Its not just Punch and Judy, or even a QC forensically questioning a hapless suspect.
Starmer is using PMQs in a way that I cannot recall in recent times. He is using it to lead the agenda. First this reverse on policy, but also the heffalump trap set for 1 June if we do not have an effective Tracing system in place.
You can just close your eyes and see the advisors trying to get some pretence of that in place for that deadline. Meanwhile the heffalump will blunder into another one.
Its like watching my cat play with a mouse. Gripping and appalling at the same time.
Starmer has an effective PMQs technique where he analyses Johnson's answer to the previous question before moving onto the next. This gives him apparent control over the discussion. If you don't listen carefully you might think. Starmer, not Johnson, was PM
Opposition leaders generally comment on the (non) answer they have just received, before playing their next question. Even Corbyn often did so. Starmer is just better at it.
Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford University:
"Asked what her updated estimate for the Infection Fatality Rate is, Professor Gupta says, “I think that the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country so I think it would be definitely less than 1 in 1000 and probably closer to 1 in 10,000.” That would be somewhere between 0.1% and 0.01%."
We have a population of 67 million and 36 000 confirmed Covid deaths (plus excess deaths) so we already have lost 0.05% of the population, assuming 100% of the population infected.
As we are nowhere near 100% infected, then surely 0.01% is impossible, or have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?
I think your maths are correct.
..whereas your grammar looks somewhat dodgy.
Did anybody else spot the grammatical error in Hancock's speech today?
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
This was put to Gupta in the interview, and she pointed out that the demographics of a cruise ship are unusually vulnerable.
Also remember that in that environment, many of the passengers will have been exposed to the virus over and over. Rather like those people in the ski chalet at the beginning of the outbreak. Yet very many of them walked away unaffected.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
PB Tories don't often work on facts. They just make it up as they go along and try to confuse you when they get it wrong.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
PB Tories don't often work on facts. They just make it up as they go along and try to confuse you when they get it wrong.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
PB Tories don't often work on facts. They just make it up as they go along and try to confuse you when they get it wrong.
I think you are being unfair to PB Tories in general. It is the PB Tory glitterati that you are thinking of, but whilst you are on your description equally applies to Boris' government.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
PB Tories don't often work on facts. They just make it up as they go along and try to confuse you when they get it wrong.
If you're easily confused it's not our fault.
Problem is that those who aren't easily confused get rather annoyed at the stupidity of the posters who are too stupid to identify when they are talking about things they don't understand.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
PB Tories don't often work on facts. They just make it up as they go along and try to confuse you when they get it wrong.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore).
Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Maybe, but lets face it cruise ships are far from a proper cross section of the community.
True up to a point. Skew older but also richer than average and I would bet healthier than average for their age group. However you cook it, the data from cruise ships cannot be reconciled with the idea that almost all cases are asymptomatic and almost nobody dies. The explanation for the drop in new cases that does make sense, on the other hand, is that transmission has been halted by social distancing.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Not really - a lot of people on the diamond princess didn't get ill. No idea if they have antibodies now, but I am very hopeful for the latent immunity idea, and the data that is coming out suggests something is odd. London with virtually no new cases at 17% having had the virus? The lockdown's not that good.
It's difficult to catch anything if you're confined to your cabin.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Not really - a lot of people on the diamond princess didn't get ill. No idea if they have antibodies now, but I am very hopeful for the latent immunity idea, and the data that is coming out suggests something is odd. London with virtually no new cases at 17% having had the virus? The lockdown's not that good.
It's difficult to catch anything if you're confined to your cabin.
I think a lot of it was transmitted via the food that was delivered
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
PB Tories don't often work on facts. They just make it up as they go along and try to confuse you when they get it wrong.
If you're easily confused it's not our fault.
You claimed earlier that the EU FOM policy is racist. It's not me that's confused and fallen off the deep end, mate.
The first is a lower bound, that can be imputed from a large area that's suffered an outbreak.
New York State is 1478 deaths per million of Covid so that gives a lower bound of 0.14%.
The lower bound on the other side is the seroprevalence for the UK of 5% leading to 0.0531% of the population dieing. That'd give an upper bound of 1.062% IFR.
Unfortunately I don't have the London "all settings" deaths so can't work with the 17% cited there. So it's somewhere between 0.14% and 1.062%.
Mrs Stodge and I paid our first visit to our local supermarket in over two months having subsisted during our working at home (for the benefit of @NerysHughes that's "working at home") time on home deliveries and click and collect.
The first observation is for all the lines and signs social distancing just doesn't work in a supermarket. The problem is people's brains are not wired to the layout do if they forget something they just wander back and get it - sod the one-way system and social distancing, I just want my (fill in the blank). The checkout was much better but with every other till closed the process took a lot longer but we've learnt some valuable lessons.
By the time we left the queue to get in was growing and I can only imagine it'll be fun and games over the weekend but with a disappointing weather forecast at least the coastal resorts may be spared the migration of the lockdown lemmings.
The PMI numbers this morning weren't quite as bad as I feared and it's possible the final numbers will be a notch better. Q2 is going to be horrible even if we get further improvement in June and I certainly would expect Manufacturing to improve again next month back towards a near normal number.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
This was put to Gupta in the interview, and she pointed out that the demographics of a cruise ship are unusually vulnerable.
Also remember that in that environment, many of the passengers will have been exposed to the virus over and over. Rather like those people in the ski chalet at the beginning of the outbreak. Yet very many of them walked away unaffected.
I guess the millions of antibody tests the government has ordered will in the end prove Gupta right or wrong.
If she's right then the antibody levels will actually be quite low even as deaths fall and we lift lock down.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Not really - a lot of people on the diamond princess didn't get ill. No idea if they have antibodies now, but I am very hopeful for the latent immunity idea, and the data that is coming out suggests something is odd. London with virtually no new cases at 17% having had the virus? The lockdown's not that good.
It's difficult to catch anything if you're confined to your cabin.
I think a lot of it was transmitted via the food that was delivered
Cabin Steward, a gin and tonic for my wife, and can I have a Corona please?
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
This was put to Gupta in the interview, and she pointed out that the demographics of a cruise ship are unusually vulnerable.
Also remember that in that environment, many of the passengers will have been exposed to the virus over and over. Rather like those people in the ski chalet at the beginning of the outbreak. Yet very many of them walked away unaffected.
I guess the millions of antibody tests the government has ordered will in the end prove Gupta right or wrong.
If she's right then the antibody levels will actually be quite low even as deaths fall and we lift lock down.
The mystery factor is natural immunity, if it exists, which won't show in the antibody tests yet may confer a significant proportion of the population with immunity, or at least significant resistance. In the video Gupta posits that even having had a recent cold might do this.
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
Not really - a lot of people on the diamond princess didn't get ill. No idea if they have antibodies now, but I am very hopeful for the latent immunity idea, and the data that is coming out suggests something is odd. London with virtually no new cases at 17% having had the virus? The lockdown's not that good.
It's difficult to catch anything if you're confined to your cabin.
I think a lot of it was transmitted via the food that was delivered
Cabin Steward, a gin and tonic for my wife, and can I have a Corona please?
So it's wives then that are the issue? (Obviously there can be no issue with beer!)
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
This was put to Gupta in the interview, and she pointed out that the demographics of a cruise ship are unusually vulnerable.
Also remember that in that environment, many of the passengers will have been exposed to the virus over and over. Rather like those people in the ski chalet at the beginning of the outbreak. Yet very many of them walked away unaffected.
I guess the millions of antibody tests the government has ordered will in the end prove Gupta right or wrong.
If she's right then the antibody levels will actually be quite low even as deaths fall and we lift lock down.
Even among the portion of the general population that precisely matches the demographic profile of the people on the cruise ship (relatively well off people over 50), the % exhibiting symptoms is way lower than for the cruise ship passengers (otherwise we would have millions of reported cases) while the % of deaths among symptomatic patients is more or less the same. That suggests that the difference is exposure to the virus not differences in natural immunity. The argument that the people on the cruise ship were exposed to the virus a lot more is precisely the one I am making: the lockdown has slashed exposure and halted the spread. I don't think there is any evidence that contradicts the rather boring but obvious explanation.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
Heard on the grapevine that some companies have apparently been furloughing staff and then asking them to *cough* "help out"... Bit of an abuse that if true.
I'm watching the 1992 GE coverage and Peter Kellner predicted that within a decade we'd have a form of proportional representation whether the Tories liked it or not because Brussels would tell us we had to have it!
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
This was put to Gupta in the interview, and she pointed out that the demographics of a cruise ship are unusually vulnerable.
Also remember that in that environment, many of the passengers will have been exposed to the virus over and over. Rather like those people in the ski chalet at the beginning of the outbreak. Yet very many of them walked away unaffected.
I guess the millions of antibody tests the government has ordered will in the end prove Gupta right or wrong.
If she's right then the antibody levels will actually be quite low even as deaths fall and we lift lock down.
Even among the portion of the general population that precisely matches the demographic profile of the people on the cruise ship (relatively well off people over 50), the % exhibiting symptoms is way lower than for the cruise ship passengers (otherwise we would have millions of reported cases) while the % of deaths among symptomatic patients is more or less the same. That suggests that the difference is exposure to the virus not differences in natural immunity. The argument that the people on the cruise ship were exposed to the virus a lot more is precisely the one I am making: the lockdown has slashed exposure and halted the spread. I don't think there is any evidence that contradicts the rather boring but obvious explanation.
"Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? "
Not sure it works like that in an academic community. Professor Gupta has gone public (I rather suspect because Unherd bothered to ask her). Correct me if I am wrong, but my experience of universities is that 'Oxford' doesn't get a say in whether she goes public.
Incidentally, Unherd have done several interviews with leading figures. It has been one of the highlights of coverage
Mrs Stodge and I paid our first visit to our local supermarket in over two months having subsisted during our working at home (for the benefit of @NerysHughes that's "working at home") time on home deliveries and click and collect.
The first observation is for all the lines and signs social distancing just doesn't work in a supermarket. The problem is people's brains are not wired to the layout do if they forget something they just wander back and get it - sod the one-way system and social distancing, I just want my (fill in the blank). The checkout was much better but with every other till closed the process took a lot longer but we've learnt some valuable lessons.
By the time we left the queue to get in was growing and I can only imagine it'll be fun and games over the weekend but with a disappointing weather forecast at least the coastal resorts may be spared the migration of the lockdown lemmings.
Indeed. And it doesn't help that the zombies on automatic pilot are the ones you especially need to avoid.
If you're willing to pay over the odds and have something similar near you, FWIW my tipes are: 1. Go late - the large Sainsbury's store here is pretty depopulated from about 8.30pm onwards until 10pm closing time. 2. Pick a mega store with wide aisles. Our local Asda is no go, the Sainsbury's is fine. 3. Sainsbury's also have a device for scanning goods yourself as you go which allows you to do a mega shop without having a problem at the checkout although you need a Nectar card. 4. Use your trolley as a weapon to enforce social distancing.
Not sure it works like that in an academic community. Professor Gupta has gone public (I rather suspect because Unherd bothered to ask her). Correct me if I am wrong, but my experience of universities is that 'Oxford' doesn't get a say in whether she goes public.
You are correct. Academics can say almost any foolish thing they want.
One thing I've realized from this crisis is that academics should be given more advice on when to keep their mouths shut, and the ethics of this. But it would only ever be advice.
Heard on the grapevine that some companies have apparently been furloughing staff and then asking them to *cough* "help out"... Bit of an abuse that if true.
Difficult for the employee to say no; not good from the employer as you say.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
PB Tories don't often work on facts. They just make it up as they go along and try to confuse you when they get it wrong.
If you're easily confused it's not our fault.
You claimed earlier that the EU FOM policy is racist. It's not me that's confused and fallen off the deep end, mate.
I think its better to judge potential migrants based on who they are rather than where they come from.
I think its better to judge potential migrants based on who they are rather than whether they come from a [predominantly white] European country or not.
How you classify that I don't intend to go around in circles anymore.
Jesus. There’s full-blown rock guitar tonight here.
NB the first time there was an 8pm clap my partner was the only person in hearing distance who bothered.
Just a thing to be seen to be doing - my neighbours are going mad for it. They'll do it better than the others. They care more. They're better. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to use siege artillery from my flat.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Indeed - but that will require repeal of the FTPA . Failing that Polling Day will be 2nd May 2024.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
TBF to Ferguson, if the 17% London infection rate and my arithmetic are correct, it works out at an IFR of 0.7% , spot on with Ferguson's model. We can say Gupta is definitely wrong with 0.01% IFR
I'm watching the 1992 GE coverage and Peter Kellner predicted that within a decade we'd have a form of proportional representation whether the Tories liked it or not because Brussels would tell us we had to have it!
We sort of did in the Euros. From recollection we were told to change the system for those elections and it was assumed elections to Westminster would follow.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
As I have to work (or should that be "work" for a living), I couldn't join this morning's discussion on the LD leadership.
For the first time in 40 years, I don't have, as the Americans put it, "any skin in the game".
Oddly enough, I'm not sure it matters very much who becomes leader. The Party has to find a new post-Brexit positioning relative to (as always) the two main parties. I do think there's room for a fiscally prudent party of the centre or centre-right to act as counterweight to Starmonism (too soon?) or at least to be a counterweight to the two high-borrowing social democratic parties.
The problem with that is, as the 1950s Liberals found, there's little electoral support in economic realism while giving away money remains as popular as ever.
I could imagine the party embracing more green policies in the coming years but not eco-authoritarianism but rather an economic policy based on a journey toward zero carbon and incentives for other areas with a clear environmental benefit - oddly enough, there are those who might argue current change in working practices might have considerable environmental benefits going forward.
If I were advising the Party, I would say "clear your mind" (yes, I know) and then "imagine life in 2030s Liberal Britain" and work backward. While we'd all like to live in such a utopia where the weather is always nice and no one has the wobbles, the practicalities of utopia need to be fleshed out.
I'd start with some basics close to my heart - what will it be like to live and work in that Britain, how will we see or be seen by the rest of the world and what will it be like to grow old in that Britain?
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
He was badly wrong on swine flu. And he also gets a lot of blame for his upper bound on CJD deaths, but to be fair to him he produced a model with a massive range because there was a lot of uncertainty. The issue is mainly that his analysis is based on a poorly maintained model over a decade old that's not been properly validated and is held together with bits of string.
His main fault this time round, in my view (and as I keep saying) is his evidence to Parliament that "half to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway". This was obviously spectacularly wrong and seems to have stuck in people's minds, making it that much harder to convince healthy people that this is something they should care about and take action over.
TBF to Ferguson, if the 17% London infection rate and my arithmetic are correct, it works out at an IFR of 0.7% , spot on with Ferguson's model. We can say Gupta is definitely wrong with 0.01% IFR
Today's antibody results also had the whole of the UK at 5%, while the ICL model estimated 5.38%. For Spain, antibodies also 5%, ICL 5.59%. For France, antibodies 4%, ICL 3.48%.
It might be a horror show under the hood, but the results look pretty good so far.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
No it won't. It will last a full term but just 4.5 years probably.
It can only last 5 if the FTPA is repealed and the government chooses to drag things out until December. Which would be a very bad thing, that would only happen if the government was really trailing in the polls.
Assuming the FTPA is repealed, October 2024 is probably the latest likely date.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
If 15% of colds are coronaviruses, and confer some immunity, how many people are likely to have had one recently enough to gain some immunity?
One of the long term implications of corona is how people fed up with the terrible mainstream news coverage have turned to alternative news sources.
This is the most interesting thing I've read on the crisis for a while, even though I suppose I am a lockdown sceptic.
Its also interesting that prof Gupta chose Unherd to do this interview. But her analysis is persuasive.
It is a good video, addressing head on the issue I raised here this morning.
The irony is that, if she is right, the government’s initial ‘shield the elderly whilst everyone else carries on’ policy, which lasted only days until the Imperial model blew it out of the water, would have been the correct one.
Absolutely. And why are Oxford going public today? because they are more convinced than ever their analysis is right. They have followed the patterns in every case and they are the same.
The illness runs out of steam very quickly but leaves few with antibodies.
Why? because enormous amounts of people have a natural immunity.
If right, its astonishing stuff.
Isn't it obvious why the infection runs out of steam (hint: millions of people don't leave their home anymore). Don't the rates of illness and death in closed systems like cruise ships tell us that it's unlikely that we've all had it without noticing?
This was put to Gupta in the interview, and she pointed out that the demographics of a cruise ship are unusually vulnerable.
Also remember that in that environment, many of the passengers will have been exposed to the virus over and over. Rather like those people in the ski chalet at the beginning of the outbreak. Yet very many of them walked away unaffected.
I guess the millions of antibody tests the government has ordered will in the end prove Gupta right or wrong.
If she's right then the antibody levels will actually be quite low even as deaths fall and we lift lock down.
Even among the portion of the general population that precisely matches the demographic profile of the people on the cruise ship (relatively well off people over 50), the % exhibiting symptoms is way lower than for the cruise ship passengers (otherwise we would have millions of reported cases) while the % of deaths among symptomatic patients is more or less the same. That suggests that the difference is exposure to the virus not differences in natural immunity. The argument that the people on the cruise ship were exposed to the virus a lot more is precisely the one I am making: the lockdown has slashed exposure and halted the spread. I don't think there is any evidence that contradicts the rather boring but obvious explanation.
Maybe, but perhaps the cruise ship is a tiny sample compared to looking at what has happened the world over. I don;t know, but I agree Gupta was less than convincing on that. Ditto, the US prisons examples. Huge infection rates in enclosed spaces.
Oxford's central argument is that the disease follows almost exactly the same pattern whatever lockdown regime is in place, and however quickly its removed. And that's looking a huge sample compared to yours. That presupposes a large group for whom the disease is 'whatever'.
If you're right then, logically, we should remain in a severe lockdown until there's a vaccine.
Others haven't, and they are not seeing a cruise ship explosion, despite low antibody readings.
Gupta was confident enough to predict the disease is done in Britain. We shall see.
Perhaps all people wanted to do was take back control. They don't mind immigration - its uncontrolled immigration they don't like.
A country that can't determine who it lets into its borders and who it doesn't is no longer a sovereign nation.
Do you believe that the average Brexit Party/UKIP supporter (ie at least half of the leave vote) will be delighted to see non-EU immigration rising steeply? Do you really think they were arguing to take back control of our borders so we can have lots more non-EU immigrants than EU immigrants?
Its my 'voices in the supermarket' factor.
Migrants from the third world to cities in the UK do not affect the industrial and rural areas.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
Although, unbelievably, the OP’s approach is why a fortnight in French is ‘quinze jours’
I remember having that argument with my daughter when she was about five, when counting steps. There is an ambiguity between taking one step between two separate steps, so you have to be clear what type of step you are referring to.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
If 15% of colds are coronaviruses, and confer some immunity, how many people are likely to have had one recently enough to gain some immunity?
It would be funny* if the advice to keep washing hands turned out to be counterproductive in the long run, because it weakened average levels of population immunity.
I'm watching the 1992 GE coverage and Peter Kellner predicted that within a decade we'd have a form of proportional representation whether the Tories liked it or not because Brussels would tell us we had to have it!
I remain a firm supporter of a change to the current electoral system but accept this needs to be in incremental steps.
Perhaps we should start with local elections - in Newham (aka Death Central), Labour has 100% of the seats (60) on 67% of the vote.
Applying some form of proportionality, Labour would win 40 seats, Conservatives 9, LDs 6 and Greens 5. That wouldn't stop Labour governing but would ensure a degree of representation for most opinions.
Democracy and accountability is in my view enhanced by plurality and having a Conservative Opposition leader holding the Mayor to account publicly seems to be entirely positive. We have a form of preference voting for the Mayoral and GLA elections - why not for the Borough elections?
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
I don't know about cholera, but in the case of Spanish Flu isn't it just because it isn't that infectious? I recall flu has an R0 of around 1.5-1.8, so 30-40% of the population gets to herd immunity.
I'm really not sold on the idea that epidemics tend to burn out, without there being a mechanism -- herd immunity, the effect of climate and season, eradication, widespread natural or cross-immunity (which is herd immunity by another route) -- that we can point to.
The thing is, I don't object to her claim that there *might* be widespread natural immunity. However there is no evidence, and her argument of parsimony is extremely weak. To advocate policy on the basis of something that is conceivable but unevidenced, and which if wrong will kill people, is really irresponsible in my view.
Isn't the comparison for 2024 surely the 2010 election not 1992, when Cameron won almost 100 seats in a single election. If Starmer achieved that he'd almost certainly be PM in a minority Government.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
He was badly wrong on swine flu. And he also gets a lot of blame for his upper bound on CJD deaths, but to be fair to him he produced a model with a massive range because there was a lot of uncertainty. The issue is mainly that his analysis is based on a poorly maintained model over a decade old that's not been properly validated and is held together with bits of string.
His main fault this time round, in my view (and as I keep saying) is his evidence to Parliament that "half to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway". This was obviously spectacularly wrong and seems to have stuck in people's minds, making it that much harder to convince healthy people that this is something they should care about and take action over.
If his model is so important, critical and central to his research, why was the code left to moulder for 13 years? Yes, 13 years.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
His conclusions are much as one would have just guessed at anyway.
Research that states the obvious isn't so helpful. If you've set yourself up as an expert in the crisis and you're stating the obvious then it's probably not the best time to arse about.
Hollywood has all sorts of neglected scientists that come good in a crisis - we, so far as I can tell, have neglected scientists that should have been more neglected.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
If 15% of colds are coronaviruses, and confer some immunity, how many people are likely to have had one recently enough to gain some immunity?
It would be funny* if the advice to keep washing hands turned out to be counterproductive in the long run, because it weakened average levels of population immunity.
*not really
Well Austraia (late autumn there of course) is having by far its lightest flu season in years.
doesn't matter he won't be in government to implement it so its just empty noise
Well it certainly bloody mattered when he told us what the government should do about the NHS surcharge yesterday because the government jumped to and U-turned in 24 hours.
doesn't matter he won't be in government to implement it so its just empty noise
So speaks Nostradamus. The all knowing one.
hardly need to be all knowing the simple fact is the tories have an 80 seat majority. He wont be in power to put into effect whatever harebrained scheme he comes up with
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
I don't know about cholera, but in the case of Spanish Flu isn't it just because it isn't that infectious? I recall flu has an R0 of around 1.5-1.8, so 30-40% of the population gets to herd immunity.
I'm really not sold on the idea that epidemics tend to burn out, without there being a mechanism -- herd immunity, the effect of climate and season, eradication, widespread natural or cross-immunity (which is herd immunity by another route) -- that we can point to.
The thing is, I don't object to her claim that there *might* be widespread natural immunity. However there is no evidence, and her argument of parsimony is extremely weak. To advocate policy on the basis of something that is conceivable but unevidenced, and which if wrong will kill people, is really irresponsible in my view.
--AS
My guess:
When there's an outbreak even without a lockdown people naturally socially distance more. They socialise less etc. So the virus spreads less causing it to fall.
Plus since peak outbreak spread is early on then when people didn't know about it so weren't distancing, after its fallen it struggles to come back as much as there is now some immunity and people are still being naturally more distant.
The exception is the Spanish Flu. That is so horrendous because the second wave was much, much, much worse than the first wave.
I'm very glad we had the election already in December.
That doesn't mean Starmer and Labour shouldn't be thinking about and planning for the eventuality of taking power at the next GE. They are the only credible alternative Government and they will present a programme at the next GE for our consideration which will not only be based on their ideas for future Government but will also be a detailed examination of the current Government's record.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
If 15% of colds are coronaviruses, and confer some immunity, how many people are likely to have had one recently enough to gain some immunity?
It would be funny* if the advice to keep washing hands turned out to be counterproductive in the long run, because it weakened average levels of population immunity.
*not really
Well Austraia (late autumn there of course) is having by far its lightest flu season in years.
Right. Which is good in the short term (because fewer flu deaths and less illness generally) but potentially bad in the long term if it increases susceptibility to a more dangerous condition (Covid-19).
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
He was badly wrong on swine flu. And he also gets a lot of blame for his upper bound on CJD deaths, but to be fair to him he produced a model with a massive range because there was a lot of uncertainty. The issue is mainly that his analysis is based on a poorly maintained model over a decade old that's not been properly validated and is held together with bits of string.
His main fault this time round, in my view (and as I keep saying) is his evidence to Parliament that "half to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway". This was obviously spectacularly wrong and seems to have stuck in people's minds, making it that much harder to convince healthy people that this is something they should care about and take action over.
My vague memory is that everyone was wrong on swine flu, but I don't recall why. It's something I'd like to look into if I had time.
I don't agree with your criticism of his code, or indeed the assessment that it's held together with bits of string. It's actually not that bad. The age is irrelevant. Academic code is almost never formally verified, and I'm not sure what other validation you'd want. SAGE also received input from LSHTM and probably other groups too, which all pointed in the same direction (in fact one you have the updated hospitalization rates that came out of Italy, it doesn't take a sophisticated model to come to the conclusion that dramatic action was needed) so I don't go along with the story that it was all because of his code that the lockdown happened.
I do agree with your criticism of his comment about victims who would have died this year anyway. He was speaking outside of his expertise (it's an actuarial calculation, not an epidemiological one), he should have known that it was outside of his expertise, and he should have not have offered that opinion.
I'm very glad we had the election already in December.
That doesn't mean Starmer and Labour shouldn't be thinking about and planning for the eventuality of taking power at the next GE. They are the only credible alternative Government and they will present a programme at the next GE for our consideration which will not only be based on their ideas for future Government but will also be a detailed examination of the current Government's record.
They absolutely should be but an election right after or during a pandemic/war is different to one three to four years into the recovery afterwards.
This government is going to be judged next time more on how the post pandemic recovery is going than how the crisis went IMO. Which wouldn't be the case if it was now.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
His conclusions are much as one would have just guessed at anyway.
Research that states the obvious isn't so helpful. If you've set yourself up as an expert in the crisis and you're stating the obvious then it's probably not the best time to arse about.
Hollywood has all sorts of neglected scientists that come good in a crisis - we, so far as I can tell, have neglected scientists that should have been more neglected.
I still don't understand exactly what you are criticizing. In what way did he arse about? I'm not sure that a Hollywood analogy helps.
I still think Johnson is aiming for less than 100 deaths per day and less than 1000 new cases per day before he can move us further out of lock down and I just wonder if the next stage may be delayed by a week. We'll see.
I note a small increase in Tube passenger numbers this week but only about 10% of normal which is probably all the network can take currently (I suspect that 10% isn't nicely spread so empty trains during the day are balanced by busier trains in the morning and evening peaks). Not all of us doing our "civic duty" it would seem.
Car numbers continue to increase above 50% of normal while train passenger numbers remain very low.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
If 15% of colds are coronaviruses, and confer some immunity, how many people are likely to have had one recently enough to gain some immunity?
It would be funny* if the advice to keep washing hands turned out to be counterproductive in the long run, because it weakened average levels of population immunity.
*not really
Well Austraia (late autumn there of course) is having by far its lightest flu season in years.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
TBF to Ferguson, if the 17% London infection rate and my arithmetic are correct, it works out at an IFR of 0.7% , spot on with Ferguson's model. We can say Gupta is definitely wrong with 0.01% IFR
An odd analysis given that she didn’t submit 0.01% as IFR. Her interviewer proposed that figure and she demurred, offering 0.05%.
Sure, she might be wrong, but at least let her be wrong about what she actually said.
So the current Tory lead is around 13 points, significantly down on even a month ago.
If Starmer can make further inroads and get into the single figures soon, that will surely be a good start.
The great unwashed still don't know who Starmer is. The gap is closing quickly because from a position of competent management through the early stages of the lockdown, the government's message has unraveled into chaos. Johnson's presidential address to the nation was from where it all started to go haywire and it has been like an episode of Dad's Army ever since.
How soon will we see the Tories below 40% in a GB poll? Possibly later this year - next year almost certainly.
I don't think this government will last the full 5 years. They've made too many mistakes already after just 5 months. Their current 50% poll rating is a bit illusory IMO.
Of course it will, it has a majority of 80, even the Major and Callaghan governments lasted 5 years with barely any majority at all
How will it last 5 years? In less than 4 years time there has to be a general election
5 years from December 2019 ie until late 2024
Thanks for confirming you don't check things even after being called out for posting complete, obvious and easily checkable rubbish - it's Boris's most obvious shortcoming and one that both you and Peter_Thompson also fall for - which makes actually debating with you completely pointless.
Thanks for confirming my original point stands absolutely and you cannot dispute it, the parliament will last 5 years
Although, unbelievably, the OP’s approach is why a fortnight in French is ‘quinze jours’
I remember having that argument with my daughter when she was about five, when counting steps. There is an ambiguity between taking one step between two separate steps, so you have to be clear what type of step you are referring to.
So that is I think four consecutive days with under 3,000 positive tests.
I think we can with certainty that the bank holiday weekend did not increase the numbers and possibly that the earliest of the lockdown relaxation did not do so either.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
He was badly wrong on swine flu. And he also gets a lot of blame for his upper bound on CJD deaths, but to be fair to him he produced a model with a massive range because there was a lot of uncertainty. The issue is mainly that his analysis is based on a poorly maintained model over a decade old that's not been properly validated and is held together with bits of string.
His main fault this time round, in my view (and as I keep saying) is his evidence to Parliament that "half to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway". This was obviously spectacularly wrong and seems to have stuck in people's minds, making it that much harder to convince healthy people that this is something they should care about and take action over.
My vague memory is that everyone was wrong on swine flu, but I don't recall why. It's something I'd like to look into if I had time.
I don't agree with your criticism of his code, or indeed the assessment that it's held together with bits of string. It's actually not that bad. The age is irrelevant. Academic code is almost never formally verified, and I'm not sure what other validation you'd want. SAGE also received input from LSHTM and probably other groups too, which all pointed in the same direction (in fact one you have the updated hospitalization rates that came out of Italy, it doesn't take a sophisticated model to come to the conclusion that dramatic action was needed) so I don't go along with the story that it was all because of his code that the lockdown happened.
I do agree with your criticism of his comment about victims who would have died this year anyway. He was speaking outside of his expertise (it's an actuarial calculation, not an epidemiological one), he should have known that it was outside of his expertise, and he should have not have offered that opinion.
--AS
Academic code generally gets a free pass because the stakes in academia are so small: if your paper is wrong the worst that can happen is someone gives a paper saying your paper is wrong. That pass is not available when it is known your advice will have real world effects. If his code is any good he should have prioritised putting it into a state where it was immediately available and comprehensible by others in case he was run over by a bus between epidemics.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
TBF to Ferguson, if the 17% London infection rate and my arithmetic are correct, it works out at an IFR of 0.7% , spot on with Ferguson's model. We can say Gupta is definitely wrong with 0.01% IFR
An odd analysis given that she didn’t submit 0.01% as IFR. Her interviewer proposed that figure and she demurred, offering 0.05%.
Sure, she might be wrong, but at least let her be wrong about what she actually said.
0.05% is utterly preposterous given our existing numbers.
doesn't matter he won't be in government to implement it so its just empty noise
So speaks Nostradamus. The all knowing one.
hardly need to be all knowing the simple fact is the tories have an 80 seat majority. He wont be in power to put into effect whatever harebrained scheme he comes up with
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
His private behaviour aside (which does indeed merit criticism), what has Ferguson actually done wrong? Haven't his models been moderately accurate, so far? Was there an error in his science?
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
He was badly wrong on swine flu. And he also gets a lot of blame for his upper bound on CJD deaths, but to be fair to him he produced a model with a massive range because there was a lot of uncertainty. The issue is mainly that his analysis is based on a poorly maintained model over a decade old that's not been properly validated and is held together with bits of string.
His main fault this time round, in my view (and as I keep saying) is his evidence to Parliament that "half to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway". This was obviously spectacularly wrong and seems to have stuck in people's minds, making it that much harder to convince healthy people that this is something they should care about and take action over.
My vague memory is that everyone was wrong on swine flu, but I don't recall why. It's something I'd like to look into if I had time.
I don't agree with your criticism of his code, or indeed the assessment that it's held together with bits of string. It's actually not that bad. The age is irrelevant. Academic code is almost never formally verified, and I'm not sure what other validation you'd want. SAGE also received input from LSHTM and probably other groups too, which all pointed in the same direction (in fact one you have the updated hospitalization rates that came out of Italy, it doesn't take a sophisticated model to come to the conclusion that dramatic action was needed) so I don't go along with the story that it was all because of his code that the lockdown happened.
I do agree with your criticism of his comment about victims who would have died this year anyway. He was speaking outside of his expertise (it's an actuarial calculation, not an epidemiological one), he should have known that it was outside of his expertise, and he should have not have offered that opinion.
--AS
Academic code generally gets a free pass because the stakes in academia are so small: if your paper is wrong the worst that can happen is someone gives a paper saying your paper is wrong. That pass is not available when it is known your advice will have real world effects. If his code is any good he should have prioritised putting it into a state where it was immediately available and comprehensible by others in case he was run over by a bus between epidemics.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
I think epidemics tend to burn out after 3-4 months, even without immunity.
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
If 15% of colds are coronaviruses, and confer some immunity, how many people are likely to have had one recently enough to gain some immunity?
It would be funny* if the advice to keep washing hands turned out to be counterproductive in the long run, because it weakened average levels of population immunity.
*not really
Well Austraia (late autumn there of course) is having by far its lightest flu season in years.
This seems underrated in the search for why R is dropping. If it is spread (mostly) by coughing then the huge drop we are seeing in other colds and flus seems really important.
Surely we should be tracking and reporting the levels of all cold and flus to better understand the transmission and put us in a better place to avoid a second peak when colds and flus start again in a few months time.
I posted a while ago (before my account reset for some reason) about Gupta's paper and her interview in the FT. I wasn't impressed, particularly with her interview that drew conclusions way beyond the science.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
(Hello AlwaysSinging)
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
TBF to Ferguson, if the 17% London infection rate and my arithmetic are correct, it works out at an IFR of 0.7% , spot on with Ferguson's model. We can say Gupta is definitely wrong with 0.01% IFR
An odd analysis given that she didn’t submit 0.01% as IFR. Her interviewer proposed that figure and she demurred, offering 0.05%.
Sure, she might be wrong, but at least let her be wrong about what she actually said.
0.05% is utterly preposterous given our existing numbers.
Fine, that’s fair opinion as you are at least criticising her submission rather than that of her interviewer.
Comments
Also remember that in that environment, many of the passengers will have been exposed to the virus over and over. Rather like those people in the ski chalet at the beginning of the outbreak. Yet very many of them walked away unaffected.
Although, unbelievably, the OP’s approach is why a fortnight in French is ‘quinze jours’
The first is a lower bound, that can be imputed from a large area that's suffered an outbreak.
New York State is 1478 deaths per million of Covid so that gives a lower bound of 0.14%.
The lower bound on the other side is the seroprevalence for the UK of 5% leading to 0.0531% of the population dieing. That'd give an upper bound of 1.062% IFR.
Unfortunately I don't have the London "all settings" deaths so can't work with the 17% cited there.
So it's somewhere between 0.14% and 1.062%.
Mrs Stodge and I paid our first visit to our local supermarket in over two months having subsisted during our working at home (for the benefit of @NerysHughes that's "working at home") time on home deliveries and click and collect.
The first observation is for all the lines and signs social distancing just doesn't work in a supermarket. The problem is people's brains are not wired to the layout do if they forget something they just wander back and get it - sod the one-way system and social distancing, I just want my (fill in the blank). The checkout was much better but with every other till closed the process took a lot longer but we've learnt some valuable lessons.
By the time we left the queue to get in was growing and I can only imagine it'll be fun and games over the weekend but with a disappointing weather forecast at least the coastal resorts may be spared the migration of the lockdown lemmings.
The PMI numbers this morning weren't quite as bad as I feared and it's possible the final numbers will be a notch better. Q2 is going to be horrible even if we get further improvement in June and I certainly would expect Manufacturing to improve again next month back towards a near normal number.
If she's right then the antibody levels will actually be quite low even as deaths fall and we lift lock down.
I'm similarly unimpressed by her intervention today. As Foxy already pointed out, it's a nonsense to claim that the IFR might be as long as 1/10000 unless she thinks that most confirmed coronavirus deaths were misattributed. Futhermore, the abstract of her paper made a big deal of the need for serological studies (the one thing it got right was to show how one could infer a distribution for the date-of-arrival of the virus once we know the cumulative number of infections). But today she says that serological studies are unreliable and shouldn't be used.
I do not like to pile on academics. Their expertise deserves respect. I think much of the criticism of Ferguson was unfair. I don't know whether there's a new paper (if anyone has a link, please send it to me and I will review) justifying today's assertions, but absent some powerful evidence I think Gupta is doing scientists a disservice and should stop with the unfounded policy interventions.
--AS
Bit of an abuse that if true.
Not sure it works like that in an academic community. Professor Gupta has gone public (I rather suspect because Unherd bothered to ask her). Correct me if I am wrong, but my experience of universities is that 'Oxford' doesn't get a say in whether she goes public.
Incidentally, Unherd have done several interviews with leading figures. It has been one of the highlights of coverage
If you're willing to pay over the odds and have something similar near you, FWIW my tipes are:
1. Go late - the large Sainsbury's store here is pretty depopulated from about 8.30pm onwards until 10pm closing time.
2. Pick a mega store with wide aisles. Our local Asda is no go, the Sainsbury's is fine.
3. Sainsbury's also have a device for scanning goods yourself as you go which allows you to do a mega shop without having a problem at the checkout although you need a Nectar card.
4. Use your trolley as a weapon to enforce social distancing.
NB the first time there was an 8pm clap my partner was the only person in hearing distance who bothered.
One thing I've realized from this crisis is that academics should be given more advice on when to keep their mouths shut, and the ethics of this. But it would only ever be advice.
--AS
Piling on academics is precisely what we should do. If you want to sit in the sun during the good times and tell us that you'll be an expert if problems arise you'd better be pretty damned good when problems actually do arise. Ferguson seems not to have been such.
I wonder what Starmer is planning
I think its better to judge potential migrants based on who they are rather than whether they come from a [predominantly white] European country or not.
How you classify that I don't intend to go around in circles anymore.
I did read his papers and have some understanding of such things, and I didn't see much to criticize. LSHTM, who also have an excellent epidemiology group, came to similar conclusions. I don't care for the Imperial group's taste for publicity, I must admit.
--AS
Take for example the Spanish Flu. There were 3 waves, but even then it is estimated that 30-40% caught it across all the waves. Avoidance, whether intentional or not, protects quite a few folk. The same is true for cholera outbreaks in Victorian London.
10-15% immunity and the wave being nearly over is not incompatible.
For the first time in 40 years, I don't have, as the Americans put it, "any skin in the game".
Oddly enough, I'm not sure it matters very much who becomes leader. The Party has to find a new post-Brexit positioning relative to (as always) the two main parties. I do think there's room for a fiscally prudent party of the centre or centre-right to act as counterweight to Starmonism (too soon?) or at least to be a counterweight to the two high-borrowing social democratic parties.
The problem with that is, as the 1950s Liberals found, there's little electoral support in economic realism while giving away money remains as popular as ever.
I could imagine the party embracing more green policies in the coming years but not eco-authoritarianism but rather an economic policy based on a journey toward zero carbon and incentives for other areas with a clear environmental benefit - oddly enough, there are those who might argue current change in working practices might have considerable environmental benefits going forward.
If I were advising the Party, I would say "clear your mind" (yes, I know) and then "imagine life in 2030s Liberal Britain" and work backward. While we'd all like to live in such a utopia where the weather is always nice and no one has the wobbles, the practicalities of utopia need to be fleshed out.
I'd start with some basics close to my heart - what will it be like to live and work in that Britain, how will we see or be seen by the rest of the world and what will it be like to grow old in that Britain?
His main fault this time round, in my view (and as I keep saying) is his evidence to Parliament that "half to two thirds of coronavirus victims may have died this year anyway". This was obviously spectacularly wrong and seems to have stuck in people's minds, making it that much harder to convince healthy people that this is something they should care about and take action over.
It might be a horror show under the hood, but the results look pretty good so far.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11676931/teen-claims-grooming-gang-assault/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Oxford's central argument is that the disease follows almost exactly the same pattern whatever lockdown regime is in place, and however quickly its removed. And that's looking a huge sample compared to yours. That presupposes a large group for whom the disease is 'whatever'.
If you're right then, logically, we should remain in a severe lockdown until there's a vaccine.
Others haven't, and they are not seeing a cruise ship explosion, despite low antibody readings.
Gupta was confident enough to predict the disease is done in Britain. We shall see.
Migrants from the third world to cities in the UK do not affect the industrial and rural areas.
Bur migrants from the EU do.
*not really
Perhaps we should start with local elections - in Newham (aka Death Central), Labour has 100% of the seats (60) on 67% of the vote.
Applying some form of proportionality, Labour would win 40 seats, Conservatives 9, LDs 6 and Greens 5. That wouldn't stop Labour governing but would ensure a degree of representation for most opinions.
Democracy and accountability is in my view enhanced by plurality and having a Conservative Opposition leader holding the Mayor to account publicly seems to be entirely positive. We have a form of preference voting for the Mayoral and GLA elections - why not for the Borough elections?
I'm really not sold on the idea that epidemics tend to burn out, without there being a mechanism -- herd immunity, the effect of climate and season, eradication, widespread natural or cross-immunity (which is herd immunity by another route) -- that we can point to.
The thing is, I don't object to her claim that there *might* be widespread natural immunity. However there is no evidence, and her argument of parsimony is extremely weak. To advocate policy on the basis of something that is conceivable but unevidenced, and which if wrong will kill people, is really irresponsible in my view.
--AS
I'm very glad we had the election already in December.
Research that states the obvious isn't so helpful. If you've set yourself up as an expert in the crisis and you're stating the obvious then it's probably not the best time to arse about.
Hollywood has all sorts of neglected scientists that come good in a crisis - we, so far as I can tell, have neglected scientists that should have been more neglected.
- Stay at home at all times
- Go anywhere you want, whenever you want
- It is safe to sit on a beach with 1,000 strangers
- It is unsafe to sit in your own garden with a relative
I'm so pleased they've cleared up any confusion.
If Starmer can make further inroads and get into the single figures soon, that will surely be a good start.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242113-australia-sees-huge-decrease-in-flu-cases-due-to-coronavirus-measures/
When there's an outbreak even without a lockdown people naturally socially distance more. They socialise less etc. So the virus spreads less causing it to fall.
Plus since peak outbreak spread is early on then when people didn't know about it so weren't distancing, after its fallen it struggles to come back as much as there is now some immunity and people are still being naturally more distant.
The exception is the Spanish Flu. That is so horrendous because the second wave was much, much, much worse than the first wave.
2,615 positive
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1263516418496237569/photo/2
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-the-public
Nice drop in cases - kinda bouncy series, but it seems to have at least halved in 14 days.
I don't agree with your criticism of his code, or indeed the assessment that it's held together with bits of string. It's actually not that bad. The age is irrelevant. Academic code is almost never formally verified, and I'm not sure what other validation you'd want. SAGE also received input from LSHTM and probably other groups too, which all pointed in the same direction (in fact one you have the updated hospitalization rates that came out of Italy, it doesn't take a sophisticated model to come to the conclusion that dramatic action was needed) so I don't go along with the story that it was all because of his code that the lockdown happened.
I do agree with your criticism of his comment about victims who would have died this year anyway. He was speaking outside of his expertise (it's an actuarial calculation, not an epidemiological one), he should have known that it was outside of his expertise, and he should have not have offered that opinion.
--AS
This government is going to be judged next time more on how the post pandemic recovery is going than how the crisis went IMO. Which wouldn't be the case if it was now.
https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1263551045977780224
I wonder how many of those attacking her have even bothered to watch the 30 minute tape?
--AS
I note a small increase in Tube passenger numbers this week but only about 10% of normal which is probably all the network can take currently (I suspect that 10% isn't nicely spread so empty trains during the day are balanced by busier trains in the morning and evening peaks). Not all of us doing our "civic duty" it would seem.
Car numbers continue to increase above 50% of normal while train passenger numbers remain very low.
For two or three years I've not had any bouts of common cold.
But in April I went down with mild covid symptoms.
Is it possible that my lack of exposure to coronovirus type colds in recent years made me more susceptible to being affected by coronovirus covid ?
Sure, she might be wrong, but at least let her be wrong about what she actually said.
I think we can with certainty that the bank holiday weekend did not increase the numbers and possibly that the earliest of the lockdown relaxation did not do so either.
Surely we should be tracking and reporting the levels of all cold and flus to better understand the transmission and put us in a better place to avoid a second peak when colds and flus start again in a few months time.