Has anybody else being following the US state of Georgia and its COVID states?
For background Georgia ended it Lock-down on 1st May, and replaced it with a stay-at-home-if-venerable. People there started to return to closer to normality, slowly at first but more so over time.
the number of recorded cases was on a downwind trend, that continued for a few days before 'bottoming out' on 9th May, and then increased to a second peak on the 19 may and has since then desecrated.
Deaths, meanwhile have continued to decline steadily.
My take,:
1) There was a second wave, but much smaller than most were expecting because they got to the new heard immunity quickly.
2) by keeping the venerable at home, they have largely avoided infection and thus the death rate has not been affected, at lest not significantly.
Caveats:
a) The increase in testing may account for some of the second wave.
b) There is both a delay between infection and death and death to reporting. but I still think if there was going to be a second big wave of deaths there would be some indication in the statistics by now.
I live in Georgia. For the first few days of openness it was a bit like waking from hibernation, and vaguely disbelieving it was actually happening, and the novelty of it.
How significant are the differences in behaviour post lockdown ? (For instance do people generally wear masks indoors; maintain distance etc ?)
People are cautiously getting back to normal. Consensus is that social distancing is going to be with us until the covid-19 threat is removed. Masks are still being worn.
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
So, what is it that makes the highly-infection people highly-infectious - or is it that everyone is highly-infectious for a short time, so where you happen to be during that short time is more important?
The answers to questions like these determine how quickly the world can recover.
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
Seems to fit with the anecdotal examples (the club in Seoul, the festival in Germany, the barman in the Italian alps).
How do we identify and isolate the super-spreaders?
It seems to be super-spreader events, rather than people who are intrinsically more contagious, if I'm reading it correctly. So it requires controls or bans on things like choirs, crowded noisy bars, etc.
Considering Boris negotiated what I always said he should negotiate in my discussions with you, why is that spin?
Because he said that no British Prime Minister should ever do it and then did it. He caved. And it was a victory. For the EU (and some Irish republicans).
Does the fact that he did something he said he wouldn't do really fill you with confidence that he is the right man for the job?
... This is a new one, I've got to say. It's a bit related to Number 5, but the contention that Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes are so intrinsically different as to have a variation of ten times in their vulnerability to this virus (rather than the difference being explained by Norwegians and Danes being less exposed to infection than Swedes) has got to be worth its own entry.
No-one is saying that. You've misunderstood Karl Friston's point, which is that as well as degree of lockdown and other known knowns (demographics etc), there seems to be an additional, unknown factor acting. As well as, not instead of.
Dunno if he's right, but prima facie the anomalously low Case Fatality Rate in Germany looks like a pretty strong indication that he might be. It looks too big an anomaly to be explained simply by the fact that they've done more tests than anywhere else (especially since they haven't!).
Germany were doing a lot more tests in the early stages. I think this helped them to control the size of their outbreak, and means that they've probably identified a greater proportion of the people who have been infected with the virus - and hence a lower CFR (although I think another factor compared to the UK is that they've longer after cases isolating at home better than the UK, so hospitalised them before they were too sick to be saved with hospital treatment - that may explain the slightly high PHE estimate of IFR).
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
Seems to fit with the anecdotal examples (the club in Seoul, the festival in Germany, the barman in the Italian alps).
How do we identify and isolate the super-spreaders?
It seems to be super-spreader events, rather than people who are intrinsically more contagious, if I'm reading it correctly. So it requires controls or bans on things like choirs, crowded noisy bars, etc.
Has anybody else being following the US state of Georgia and its COVID states?
For background Georgia ended it Lock-down on 1st May, and replaced it with a stay-at-home-if-venerable. People there started to return to closer to normality, slowly at first but more so over time.
the number of recorded cases was on a downwind trend, that continued for a few days before 'bottoming out' on 9th May, and then increased to a second peak on the 19 may and has since then desecrated.
Deaths, meanwhile have continued to decline steadily.
My take,:
1) There was a second wave, but much smaller than most were expecting because they got to the new heard immunity quickly.
2) by keeping the venerable at home, they have largely avoided infection and thus the death rate has not been affected, at lest not significantly.
Caveats:
a) The increase in testing may account for some of the second wave.
b) There is both a delay between infection and death and death to reporting. but I still think if there was going to be a second big wave of deaths there would be some indication in the statistics by now.
I live in Georgia. For the first few days of openness it was a bit like waking from hibernation, and vaguely disbelieving it was actually happening, and the novelty of it.
How significant are the differences in behaviour post lockdown ? (For instance do people generally wear masks indoors; maintain distance etc ?)
People are cautiously getting back to normal. Consensus is that social distancing is going to be with us until the covid-19 threat is removed. Masks are still being worn.
The petition (signed by a million people) seeks justice for the family of Ms Mujinga, and her husband Lusamba thanked those who have signed it, saying they had been on a "rollercoaster of emotions".
Justice for what? The individual didn't have COVID, so isn't responsible for her death. That is how justice works, you charge people based upon evidence.
The variance by age is absolutely massive, everywhere. It's fairly dangerous for the over 70s, falling to extremely safe for the under 20s, with scale of risk that ramps up quickly past age 60 or so.
The quote I’ve seen is that, for adults, whatever your risk of dying was in a given year, catching Covid-19 roughly doubles that.
I think what Andy was objecting to was the tendency to magical thinking. If those arguing for rapid return to normal life at the same time accepted (for instance) the desirability of universal masking as a precaution, I would be more convinced by their arguments.
I am not enjoying the current restrictions either. It's possible that they could cost me my business - but a major recurrence in the autumn would be even more likely to do so.
It is. There is a fast conflation of "xxx may" to "xxx does" to "We must immediately change to act as if xxx is true" as long as it frees up the person suggesting it from the restrictions.
Stuff from Alistair Haimes subscribing to the first two rationalisations were frequently posted in the early days of this to prove that no lockdown was necessary.
Thank Christ no-one in authority listened.
I've been suggesting areas to lift for literally months, so I'm obviously not against targeted lifting of restrictions (insert my tired "low hanging fruit" saying here). However, a lot of the time, many suggestions from a number of people have so tinged with wanting to believe it's all gone away - either for everyone or for oneself - that it damages credibility and gets filtered out.
@Richard_Nabavi - I've gone on the commentary posted here by the advocates of "just lift lockdown now" and the claim that:
"- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations"
"- The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"."
... which doesn't match up with "No-one is saying that. You've misunderstood Karl Friston's point, which is that as well as degree of lockdown and other known knowns (demographics etc), there seems to be an additional, unknown factor acting. As well as, not instead of."
I'm very agreeable to the latter. The comments by which Friston's views were led didn't remotely suggest that. And I don't have spare half-hours to watch everything that's posted here; I wasted quite a bit of time on going through a posted video interview with a Swedish epidemiologist that provided zero extra illumination, so I'd rather not do so all the time.
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
Woo. Nice one.
But to clarify, I'm not relaxed about WH2020, far from it. Until the results are in I will be nervous. But I just have a feeling close to certainty that Trump will not be re-elected. I can intellectualize it with analytical arguments - and have done so once or twice - but this would be to not quite do it justice. It's a "big picture" intuition of the sort I get from time to time and which, when I do, I have learned to trust. My last 2 were that there would under no circumstances be a Ref2 on Brexit and that there would be a Con landslide on Dec 12th. So, you know - #trumptoast.
And my bias btw is in the other direction. Since I simply cannot bear the thought of him winning again, the dark pessimist in me seeks to find reasons that he will. Indeed I backed him to win in 2016 at 4/1 for partly this amateur and reprehensible "emotional hedge" reason, as well as genuinely thinking it was the value bet. Yet this time, despite this bias, I "know" he will lose. That is a measure of how confident I am.
But not relaxed. Not one iota relaxed. It means more to me that he is defeated than anything in my life right now, bar the obvious caveats.
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
Seems to fit with the anecdotal examples (the club in Seoul, the festival in Germany, the barman in the Italian alps).
How do we identify and isolate the super-spreaders?
It seems to be super-spreader events, rather than people who are intrinsically more contagious, if I'm reading it correctly. So it requires controls or bans on things like choirs, crowded noisy bars, etc.
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
Seems to fit with the anecdotal examples (the club in Seoul, the festival in Germany, the barman in the Italian alps).
How do we identify and isolate the super-spreaders?
It seems to be super-spreader events, rather than people who are intrinsically more contagious, if I'm reading it correctly. So it requires controls or bans on things like choirs, crowded noisy bars, etc.
Large crowds with lots of screaming and shouting .....erhhh.. protests....
A bit of foresight and discipline could have resulted in a silent protest that would still have been striking and a lot less risky. Barnard Castle thinking from all concerned.
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
Seems to fit with the anecdotal examples (the club in Seoul, the festival in Germany, the barman in the Italian alps).
How do we identify and isolate the super-spreaders?
It seems to be super-spreader events, rather than people who are intrinsically more contagious, if I'm reading it correctly. So it requires controls or bans on things like choirs, crowded noisy bars, etc.
Start with the certainty that "I must be allowed to be free of these restrictions." Rationalise it any way you can:
Rationalisation 1: There isn't a problem. The death rate hasn't even increased! Cite ONS stats that haven't yet been updated Rationalisation 2: There is a problem, but it's only killing those at death's door - those who "should" have died already. Cite the stats showing that we had a better-than-usual winter for deaths and indicate that these deaths are just a bit of "catching up" (Variant - those who died were due to die very soon anyway, very sad, never mind; ignore that the median expectancy for those dead was well over a decade) Rationalisation 3: There is a problem, but lockdown's not helping. Cite the fact that we've been locked down for several days already and the death rate hasn't come down yet Rationalisation 4: There is a problem, but lockdown didn't help. Switch instantly from "the death rate hasn't decreased yet; it would have done if lockdown helped" to "the death rate decreased too quickly for it to be lockdown." Ignore any discrepancy Rationalisation 5: There is a problem, but we could cope without lockdown. Cite Sweden. Ignore the differential death rate between it and its neighbours and insist that the only possible influence on the death rate is the lockdown and ignore all the other factors that influence infectivity and transmission (population density in urban areas, transport, connectivity, culture, environment). Rationalisation 6: There was a problem but it's all over. Cite a lone authority to claim that the death rate is one in ten thousand without bothering to work out that this means the death toll would have spiked at 6,700 in the UK. Rationalisation 7: There is/was a problem, but it's confined to oldies and fatties and the ill. Cite the death rate; gloss over hospitalisations and intensive care. Ignore that many younger, fitter, and healthier people get very ill but recover thanks to hospital help; imply that whatever demographic I am in is all-but-immune to this. Insist that this means that my demographic should be completely freed; ignore or gloss over both the issues of protecting the more vulnerable from me infecting them and killing them, or the potential problems of all my demographic getting ill and overwhelming the NHS.
We don't see Number 1 that often these days, but it was by far the most common early on.
This is a new one, I've got to say. It's a bit related to Number 5, but the contention that Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes are so intrinsically different as to have a variation of ten times in their vulnerability to this virus (rather than the difference being explained by Norwegians and Danes being less exposed to infection than Swedes) has got to be worth its own entry.
I’d have more respect for the people doing this if they just admitted that it’s down to it being what they want to do with everything else as a post hoc justification that they’ve cobbled together by ignoring the above.
Anyway, I remain teaching online, so not much time to post. School thinks it’s too risky (and, I imagine, economically difficult) to open until September.
The variance by age is absolutely massive, everywhere. It's fairly dangerous for the over 70s, falling to extremely safe for the under 20s, with scale of risk that ramps up quickly past age 60 or so.
The quote I’ve seen is that, for adults, whatever your risk of dying was in a given year, catching Covid-19 roughly doubles that.
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
I think what Andy was objecting to was the tendency to magical thinking. If those arguing for rapid return to normal life at the same time accepted (for instance) the desirability of universal masking as a precaution, I would be more convinced by their arguments.
I am not enjoying the current restrictions either. It's possible that they could cost me my business - but a major recurrence in the autumn would be even more likely to do so.
It is. There is a fast conflation of "xxx may" to "xxx does" to "We must immediately change to act as if xxx is true" as long as it frees up the person suggesting it from the restrictions.
Stuff from Alistair Haimes subscribing to the first two rationalisations were frequently posted in the early days of this to prove that no lockdown was necessary.
Thank Christ no-one in authority listened.
I've been suggesting areas to lift for literally months, so I'm obviously not against targeted lifting of restrictions (insert my tired "low hanging fruit" saying here). However, a lot of the time, many suggestions from a number of people have so tinged with wanting to believe it's all gone away - either for everyone or for oneself - that it damages credibility and gets filtered out.
@Richard_Nabavi - I've gone on the commentary posted here by the advocates of "just lift lockdown now" and the claim that:
"- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations"
"- The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"."
... which doesn't match up with "No-one is saying that. You've misunderstood Karl Friston's point, which is that as well as degree of lockdown and other known knowns (demographics etc), there seems to be an additional, unknown factor acting. As well as, not instead of."
I'm very agreeable to the latter. The comments by which Friston's views were led didn't remotely suggest that. And I don't have spare half-hours to watch everything that's posted here; I wasted quite a bit of time on going through a posted video interview with a Swedish epidemiologist that provided zero extra illumination, so I'd rather not do so all the time.
I've been wondering for some time if, when thinking about the virus, some people suffer from the same kind of fallacy as the late 19th century evolutionists after Darwin who wouldn't accept natural selection and assumed that there was some sort of momentum in the evolutionary trjectory, inevitable racial senescence in dinosaurs/White Man, etc.
They give me the impression of thinking that the curve in cases up and downward is somehow immutable and will just keep on going, to use a Brexiter patriotic metaphor like as V-1 whose engine has cut otu, or a V-2 post-boost phase.
But in reality the virus is like a snake with the lockdown boot on its neck - opr a fire with the fire blanket on it - the moment you release that it will metaphorically flare up agin in any way it can percolate through the different communities, just by reproducing as best it can. I'm wondering if we are seeing this release in England right now with the R up to 1.
And, like any good Darwinian organism, it will evolve increased or decreased lethality just as natural selection pressures dictate, whatever they are (including himan interventions) - this cannot be predicted easily.
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
Agreed. Trump is a danger to everyone: He’s perfectly capable of accidentally triggerring WWIII through shear incompetence & he’s going to cling on to power with every last breath. Until he’s been booted out of the presidency into orbit none of us are safe.
I'd say he is capable of deliberately starting a war if he thought it would play for him in November.
I also expect him to (i) try and fix the election and (ii) when he loses claim it was fraudulent and not concede.
Considering Boris negotiated what I always said he should negotiate in my discussions with you, why is that spin?
Because he said that no British Prime Minister should ever do it and then did it. He caved. And it was a victory. For the EU (and some Irish republicans).
Does the fact that he did something he said he wouldn't do really fill you with confidence that he is the right man for the job?
Yes because I see a difference between what he said he wouldn't do and what he did. Even if you can't see it, I do.
Furthermore and more important to me, he did what I said he should do, and what I said repeatedly to you when she was PM that May should do and as a result I completely and wholeheartedly approve.
Call me selfish but I'm even more keen on politicians doing what I think they should ...
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
Does it have to be metaphorical?
I'd be worried about the banhammer if I suggested literal . . .
Actually he said that Germany's low rate (of infections and deaths, rather than specifically CFR) is not due to superior testing. Logic suggests that it is surely at least partly due to that.
And surely it makes more sense to compare Sweden with its neighbours before deciding that lockdown has no effect?
And does Germany have an anomalously low CFR? There are loads of countries with similar or lower CFRs.
If you want to compare the UK and Germany, it looks like the main reason why there are more deaths in the UK is because more people were infected.
1. No-one (or at least no-one sane) is saying lockdown has no effect. Of course if you confine the entire population to house arrest so they don't interact, a contagious disease is not going to spread much for the duration of that lockdown. No-one disputes that.
2. It is perfectly possible that Sweden has a much higher death rate than Norway principally because of the differences in degree of lockdown, AND that the CFR in Germany is anomalously low compared with the UK, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. They are completely independent points.
3. Yes, Germany does have an anomalously low CFR - less than half or even a third of that of comparable Western European countries. Might this be explained purely by the fact that they tested many more asymptomatic people? Maybe, but it's a hell of a large effect, especially since they haven't tested a particularly large number of people.
4. It is also perfectly possible that the low incidence of cases in Germany compared with the Netherlands, France and Italy is not fully explained by the differences in lockdown or in the effectiveness of the test-and-trace.
Friston's point is that he's done the maths, and the identifiable factors aren't the whole explanation of the differences. I don't know if he's right, but hand-waving doesn't show he's wrong.
The variance by age is absolutely massive, everywhere. It's fairly dangerous for the over 70s, falling to extremely safe for the under 20s, with scale of risk that ramps up quickly past age 60 or so.
The quote I’ve seen is that, for adults, whatever your risk of dying was in a given year, catching Covid-19 roughly doubles that.
We still have a handful of posters who admit to wanting him to win. Plus some who secretly do (I know who they are). Plus those who still wibble on about what a terrible choice it is, him or Biden, as if there is an equivalence there.
But you are solid enough on the matter, I sense. Which is all you can be.
Actually he said that Germany's low rate (of infections and deaths, rather than specifically CFR) is not due to superior testing. Logic suggests that it is surely at least partly due to that.
And surely it makes more sense to compare Sweden with its neighbours before deciding that lockdown has no effect?
And does Germany have an anomalously low CFR? There are loads of countries with similar or lower CFRs.
If you want to compare the UK and Germany, it looks like the main reason why there are more deaths in the UK is because more people were infected.
1. No-one (or at least no-one sane) is saying lockdown has no effect. Of course if you confine the entire population to house arrest so they don't interact, a contagious disease is not going to spread much for the duration of that lockdown. No-one disputes that.
2. It is perfectly possible that Sweden has a much higher death rate than Norway principally because of the differences in degree of lockdown, AND that the CFR in Germany is anomalously low compared with the UK, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. They are completely independent points.
3. Yes, Germany does have an anomalously low CFR - less than half or even a third of that of comparable Western European countries. Might this be explained purely by the fact that they tested many more asymptomatic people? Maybe, but it's a hell of a large effect, especially since they haven't tested a particularly large number of people.
4. It is also perfectly possible that the low incidence of cases in Germany compared with the Netherlands, France and Italy is not fully explained by the differences in lockdown or in the effectiveness of the test-and-trace.
Friston's point is that he's done the maths, and the identifiable factors aren't the whole explanation of the differences. I don't know if he's right, but hand-waving doesn't show he's wrong.
I would have thought that it's pretty obvious that there's a lot about this disease that is not understood. Yet it's surprising how few are prepared to acknowledge that.
There are a lot of people coming with their own angle and presenting it as irrefutably correct on skimpy data. A few more scientists saying "we don't know enough to be sure" would be welcome just now.
This is a quite astonishing article on the bewildering array of federal police agencies in the US:
The Story Behind Bill Barr’s Unmarked Federal Agents https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/05/protests-washington-dc-federal-agents-law-enforcement-302551 ...Concerningly, under the Trump administration, many of these agencies have been rudderless—overseen by rotating series of acting officials. More than half of all federal civilian law enforcement right now is being led by temporary acting officials, everything from ICE and CBP to DEA. (That calculation doesn’t even count the thousands of special agents in inspectors general offices that have recently seen an administrationwide purge of the government’s watchdogs.) The Bureau of Prisons was being overseen by an acting director last summer when Jeffrey Epstein managed to commit suicide while supposedly under strict monitoring. The DEA, with its special temporary powers for the protests, is currently led by an acting administrator who has been on the job for just days.
Such leadership voids are not solely a recent problem of the Trump administration: Thanks to pressure from the National Rifle Association on Republican lawmakers about the agency’s firearms investigations, the ATF has had a Senate-confirmed director for a total of only two years since 2003. Last month, the Trump administration withdrew its most recent nominee to be ATF director, Chuck Canterbury, a former police union leader who had been deemed by Republican senators as too liberal on guns. (Yes, you read that right: The former head of the Fraternal Order of Police was considered too liberal for the GOP.)
The proliferation of federal officers across government—and the proliferation of watchdogs watching those government agencies—means that you might one day be woken up by a SWAT team-style raid by the Department of Education or the EPA. And the number keeps growing: Congress was surprised when the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction—known as SIGAR—began procuring its own ammunition, flashing lights and body armor for its special agents. Just like its laws, there are too many federal agents for the government to keep track of.
The Covid-19 pandemic has even spawned what will apparently be the nation’s newest federal investigator: The Senate confirmed on Tuesday a special inspector general to oversee the $500 billion pandemic recovery spending. He, presumably, will be recruiting his own agents and equipment soon....
That's a really clever idea. It allows for a transition without calling it a transition, provides political cover for Boris, and best of all allows the whole self-harm nonsense to be quietly forgotten by some future British government.
I rather suspect the Brexiteer loons won't fall for it though.
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
We still have a handful of posters who admit to wanting him to win. Plus some who secretly do (I know who they are). Plus those who still wibble on about what a terrible choice it is, him or Biden, as if there is an equivalence there.
But you are solid enough on the matter, I sense. Which is all you can be.
I personally think it is a godawful choice between Trump and Biden (who I personally view as having clear signs of the onset of dementia). I would like to know who Biden's Veep pick is, as they are likely to be taking over as acting President IMHO.
But that November ballot paper is dreadful. If that is indeed how it stays.
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
Does it have to be metaphorical?
In the interests of maintaining the rule of law, of course.
Though I hold out some hope of an orange jumpsuit in his future.
That's a really clever idea. It allows for a transition without calling it a transition, provides political cover for Boris, and best of all allows the whole self-harm nonsense to be quietly forgotten by some future British government.
I rather suspect the Brexiteer loons won't fall for it though.
Its likely not a transition, just a face-saving way for the EU to climbdown.
They can drop their onerous LPF demands on the basis that in the future there might be tariffs/quotas, while agreeing to a deal now. Then in reality the subtractions will probably never even happen since its not in anyone's interest to do so, but the EU have saved face on the reason they've caved on their original LPF demands.
We still have a handful of posters who admit to wanting him to win. Plus some who secretly do (I know who they are). Plus those who still wibble on about what a terrible choice it is, him or Biden, as if there is an equivalence there.
But you are solid enough on the matter, I sense. Which is all you can be.
Trump is a disaster for everything that is decent in the world
That's a really clever idea. It allows for a transition without calling it a transition, provides political cover for Boris, and best of all allows the whole self-harm nonsense to be quietly forgotten by some future British government.
I rather suspect the Brexiteer loons won't fall for it though.
Its likely not a transition, just a face-saving way for the EU to climbdown.
They can drop their onerous LPF demands on the basis that in the future there might be tariffs/quotas, while agreeing to a deal now. Then in reality the subtractions will probably never even happen since its not in anyone's interest to do so, but the EU have saved face on the reason they've caved on their original LPF demands.
Ha! So it might work on giving Boris the political cover he needs.
That's a really clever idea. It allows for a transition without calling it a transition, provides political cover for Boris, and best of all allows the whole self-harm nonsense to be quietly forgotten by some future British government.
I rather suspect the Brexiteer loons won't fall for it though.
That's a really clever idea. It allows for a transition without calling it a transition, provides political cover for Boris, and best of all allows the whole self-harm nonsense to be quietly forgotten by some future British government.
I rather suspect the Brexiteer loons won't fall for it though.
Its likely not a transition, just a face-saving way for the EU to climbdown.
They can drop their onerous LPF demands on the basis that in the future there might be tariffs/quotas, while agreeing to a deal now. Then in reality the subtractions will probably never even happen since its not in anyone's interest to do so, but the EU have saved face on the reason they've caved on their original LPF demands.
Ha! So it might work on giving Boris the political cover he needs.
We still have a handful of posters who admit to wanting him to win. Plus some who secretly do (I know who they are). Plus those who still wibble on about what a terrible choice it is, him or Biden, as if there is an equivalence there.
But you are solid enough on the matter, I sense. Which is all you can be.
I personally think it is a godawful choice between Trump and Biden (who I personally view as having clear signs of the onset of dementia). I would like to know who Biden's Veep pick is, as they are likely to be taking over as acting President IMHO.
But that November ballot paper is dreadful. If that is indeed how it stays.
Harris, I reckon.
Not an inspiring choice, no. But an easy one. Not about left v right or parties either. I can tell you this with no word of a lie - if a "Trump" as he is but now a left wing Dem was up against a "Biden" as he is but now a right wing Republican, I would vote Republican without a moment's hesitation. I cannot for the life of me understand or even empathize with anybody over here who does not feel the same.
Regarding the thread, it is surely significant that Labour are now in the position of not only having the more favourably regarded leader (net +12% Starmer v -4% Johnson) but also being the more favourably (or at least less unfavourably) regarded party (net -8% compared to -11%). Starmer's lead is by no predictable if still unusual, but the recovery in attitudes to Labour as a party is something new. Labour had a net unfavourability rating of -26% as a party back in March.
Unfortunately, Ipsos Mori haven't published a voting intention poll since March. Given Labour's lead in both favourability ratings, it would be interesting to see whether Ipsos Mori are still showing them ahead in VI.
Actually he said that Germany's low rate (of infections and deaths, rather than specifically CFR) is not due to superior testing. Logic suggests that it is surely at least partly due to that.
And surely it makes more sense to compare Sweden with its neighbours before deciding that lockdown has no effect?
And does Germany have an anomalously low CFR? There are loads of countries with similar or lower CFRs.
If you want to compare the UK and Germany, it looks like the main reason why there are more deaths in the UK is because more people were infected.
1. No-one (or at least no-one sane) is saying lockdown has no effect. Of course if you confine the entire population to house arrest so they don't interact, a contagious disease is not going to spread much for the duration of that lockdown. No-one disputes that.
We literally had it introduced here with someone posting a summary point that:
"- The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"
I completely believe your representation. But there are a significant number of people out there who believe (or advocate that they believe) that the lockdowns have no effect or benefit. A quick google of that phrase (in quotes) comes up with plenty of results, including from fairly mainstream publications.
It's that take on it that raises my hackles. Not people suggesting there a a bunch of unknowns. I've said so myself. It's the people suggesting that unknowns may help and instantly advocating that we act as though these unknowns are certainly true and make other precautions immediately unnecessary.
Sky News just interviewed Andy Burnham about the Cambridge University / Public Health England regional R stats that show the North West possibly above 1 with a figure of 1.01 provided.
Thought this was not meant to happen?
Was the relaxation policy based on what was best for London and not the rest of the country by any chance?
Everywhere around us builders are at work, gardeners and painters working outside, the weekly recycling being collected, the parks grass being cut, meals being delivered, lots of people on the promenades eating ice cream or fish and chips, even if the seagulls have other ideas
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
Agreed. Trump is a danger to everyone: He’s perfectly capable of accidentally triggerring WWIII through shear incompetence & he’s going to cling on to power with every last breath. Until he’s been booted out of the presidency into orbit none of us are safe.
I'd say he is capable of deliberately starting a war if he thought it would play for him in November.
I also expect him to (i) try and fix the election and (ii) when he loses claim it was fraudulent and not concede.
I can see him being frog marched out of the Oval Office by a SWAT team.
Sky News just interviewed Andy Burnham about the Cambridge University / Public Health England regional R stats that show the North West possibly above 1 with a figure of 1.01 provided.
Thought this was not meant to happen?
Was the relaxation policy based on what was best for London and not the rest of the country by any chance?
It's definitely time to get the face masks out on the Manchester trams.
Seeing a potential second wave is maybe a few months away, lets hope for something quicker than 'calling for an inquiry'.
I'm very hopeful that the 20-minute antigen test that was put into trials a couple of weeks ago may be proven and widely available by then. They were forecasting 6 weeks for trials; we're a third of the way into that, so it could be available by July.
If it can be made effectively self-contained and easily usable, and made widely available, it's an instant game-changer for any waves - whether the remnant of the first wave or any incipient second or subsequent waves.
Everywhere around us builders are at work, gardeners and painters working outside, the weekly recycling being collected, the parks grass being cut, meals being delivered, lots of people on the promenades eating ice cream or fish and chips, even if the seagulls have other ideas
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
Agreed. Trump is a danger to everyone: He’s perfectly capable of accidentally triggerring WWIII through shear incompetence & he’s going to cling on to power with every last breath. Until he’s been booted out of the presidency into orbit none of us are safe.
I'd say he is capable of deliberately starting a war if he thought it would play for him in November.
I also expect him to (i) try and fix the election and (ii) when he loses claim it was fraudulent and not concede.
I can see him being frog marched out of the Oval Office by a SWAT team.
Yep. Or medicated and transported horizontal to a room in Trump Tower.
It will be interesting how he plays things post office (assuming no jail). Monetize monetize monetize, I guess.
I see a difference between what he said he wouldn't do and what he did.
He said he wouldn't put a border in the Irish Sea.
And then he did put a border in the Irish Sea.
You don't understand. This is great because Philip wanted him to go back on his word so all is good. Couldn't get a better Prime Minister.
To be fair, Johnson hasn't actually put a border in the Irish Sea yet, only agreed to the principle of it. He just needs to find a new way to capitulate to the EU to avoid the need for one.
Everywhere around us builders are at work, gardeners and painters working outside, the weekly recycling being collected, the parks grass being cut, meals being delivered, lots of people on the promenades eating ice cream or fish and chips, even if the seagulls have other ideas
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
It's hailstoning here. So quite the opposite.
I went running earlier and in the space of half an hour had freezing hail and bright sunshine.
That's a really clever idea. It allows for a transition without calling it a transition, provides political cover for Boris, and best of all allows the whole self-harm nonsense to be quietly forgotten by some future British government.
I rather suspect the Brexiteer loons won't fall for it though.
Doesn't it work quite well for Brexiters too?
We retain flexibility to change our rules, or reject a change to EU rules, but we don't have to pay for that flexibility with tariffs until we want to use it.
Sky News just interviewed Andy Burnham about the Cambridge University / Public Health England regional R stats that show the North West possibly above 1 with a figure of 1.01 provided.
Thought this was not meant to happen?
Was the relaxation policy based on what was best for London and not the rest of the country by any chance?
SAGE still telling ministers it is between 0.7-0.9.
Oh no, so when we ask for less they respond they are only able to give us what we originally asked for?
How are we going to live with that. Calling the EUs bluff was a brilliant move.
You presumably don't read the Guardian so may have missed their write up from yesterday. It very much reads as though the EU leaders have blinked rather than continue to leave things to the dead hand of Barnier:
"The signal that the EU’s 27 heads of state and government are prepared to turn their focus to the stalling talks will be a boost to Downing Street, where officials have emphasised the need for a resetting of Michel Barnier’s negotiating position."
Everywhere around us builders are at work, gardeners and painters working outside, the weekly recycling being collected, the parks grass being cut, meals being delivered, lots of people on the promenades eating ice cream or fish and chips, even if the seagulls have other ideas
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
It's hailstoning here. So quite the opposite.
The amount of building work that seems to be being lined up just in my street judging by the planning applications might indicate a huge swing back for construction trades in next three months.
Everywhere around us builders are at work, gardeners and painters working outside, the weekly recycling being collected, the parks grass being cut, meals being delivered, lots of people on the promenades eating ice cream or fish and chips, even if the seagulls have other ideas
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
Sky News just interviewed Andy Burnham about the Cambridge University / Public Health England regional R stats that show the North West possibly above 1 with a figure of 1.01 provided.
Thought this was not meant to happen?
Was the relaxation policy based on what was best for London and not the rest of the country by any chance?
SAGE still telling ministers it is between 0.7-0.9.
Is that nationally or in the NW? Rightly or wrongly there is a perception we entered lockdown because the virus was rampant in London. And ended it because it was in steep decline in London.
Oh no, so when we ask for less they respond they are only able to give us what we originally asked for?
How are we going to live with that. Calling the EUs bluff was a brilliant move.
You presumably don't read the Guardian so may have missed their write up from yesterday. It very much reads as though the EU leaders have blinked rather than continue to leave things to the dead hand of Barnier:
"The signal that the EU’s 27 heads of state and government are prepared to turn their focus to the stalling talks will be a boost to Downing Street, where officials have emphasised the need for a resetting of Michel Barnier’s negotiating position."
It reminds me of the reports we used to get about Merkel intervening on the Irish border question.
Everywhere around us builders are at work, gardeners and painters working outside, the weekly recycling being collected, the parks grass being cut, meals being delivered, lots of people on the promenades eating ice cream or fish and chips, even if the seagulls have other ideas
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
What's the best thing about the possibility of Trump loosing Texas? That it virtually guarantees he loses in November, or that TSE has to eat a pineapple pizza?
Everywhere around us builders are at work, gardeners and painters working outside, the weekly recycling being collected, the parks grass being cut, meals being delivered, lots of people on the promenades eating ice cream or fish and chips, even if the seagulls have other ideas
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
It's hailstoning here. So quite the opposite.
The amount of building work that seems to be being lined up just in my street judging by the planning applications might indicate a huge swing back for construction trades in next three months.
The structural factor of more people spending more time at home ought to be a driver of more domestic construction.
Oh no, so when we ask for less they respond they are only able to give us what we originally asked for?
How are we going to live with that. Calling the EUs bluff was a brilliant move.
You presumably don't read the Guardian so may have missed their write up from yesterday. It very much reads as though the EU leaders have blinked rather than continue to leave things to the dead hand of Barnier:
"The signal that the EU’s 27 heads of state and government are prepared to turn their focus to the stalling talks will be a boost to Downing Street, where officials have emphasised the need for a resetting of Michel Barnier’s negotiating position."
It reminds me of the reports we used to get about Merkel intervening on the Irish border question.
You are going to be disappointed when she agrees a deal in September
Regional Difference in Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Tokyo: Results from the community point-of-care antibody testing https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.03.20121020v1 The serosurvey is an alternative way to know the magnitude of the population infected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since the expansion of capacity of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was delayed. We herein report seroprevalence of COVID-19 accessed in the two community clinics in Tokyo. The point-of-care immunodiagnostic test was implemented to detect the SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibody in the peripheral capillary blood. The overall positive percentage of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody is 3.83% (95% confidence interval: 2.76-5.16) for the entire cohort (n =1,071). The central Tokyo of 23 special wards exhibited a significantly higher prevalence compared to the other area of Tokyo (p =0.02, 4.68% [95%CI: 3.08-6.79] versus 1.83 [0.68-3.95] in central and suburban Tokyo, respectively). The seroprevalence of the cohort surveyed in this study is low for herd immunity, which suggests the need for robust disease control and prevention. A community-based approach, rather than state or prefectural levels, is of importance to figure out profiles of the SARS-COV-2 outbreak...
Been having another look - PHE model looks solid until end April, given the most recent ONS deaths figure from 22 days later, and if you accept their 0.88%IFR.
After that, we don't have the deaths to verify against, but PHE has the daily infection count almost flatlining, whereas hospital case data would suggest they continued to drop. Struggling to reconcile the two.
Is anyone watching Trump, live on Sky at the moment? What a rambling incompetent, incoherent fool.
Currently ranting about how he knows stocks better than Warren Buffet.
You'll be approaching my level of Trumpophobia at this rate, Philip. And I hope you make it.
I'm past your level.
You're willing to relax and take on faith that Trump will be defeated in November. My level of loathing for Trump is so far past that, that even if he were polling 25% in the polls I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Like a monster in a horror movie, we can't turn our back and assume he won't revive, we need to see this atrocity metaphorically get a stake through the heart, be burnt to dust, whatever it takes.
Agreed. Trump is a danger to everyone: He’s perfectly capable of accidentally triggerring WWIII through shear incompetence & he’s going to cling on to power with every last breath. Until he’s been booted out of the presidency into orbit none of us are safe.
I'd say he is capable of deliberately starting a war if he thought it would play for him in November.
I also expect him to (i) try and fix the election and (ii) when he loses claim it was fraudulent and not concede.
I can see him being frog marched out of the Oval Office by a SWAT team.
Yep. Or medicated and transported horizontal to a room in Trump Tower.
It will be interesting how he plays things post office (assuming no jail). Monetize monetize monetize, I guess.
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
Seems to fit with the anecdotal examples (the club in Seoul, the festival in Germany, the barman in the Italian alps).
How do we identify and isolate the super-spreaders?
It seems to be super-spreader events, rather than people who are intrinsically more contagious, if I'm reading it correctly. So it requires controls or bans on things like choirs, crowded noisy bars, etc.
Large crowds with lots of screaming and shouting .....erhhh.. protests....
A bit of foresight and discipline could have resulted in a silent protest that would still have been striking and a lot less risky. Barnard Castle thinking from all concerned.
I was thinking something similar the other day, watching the protests.
How powerful would it have been for the genuine BLM group protestors to take over somewhere like Hyde Park, standing (or kneeling) still in a 2m grid, for an hour or so?
That would have got everyone to notice them. Instead, their cause gets diluted by the idiots who cause trouble. The issue is that the group organising the protests are quite happy that the 'others' get involved, even if they can deny being involved in the bad side of the protests themselves.
Seeing a potential second wave is maybe a few months away, lets hope for something quicker than 'calling for an inquiry'.
I think the second wave will turn out to be like the millennium bug.
It could be exactly like the Millennium Bug if it is prevented by the rapid test (and consequent self-isolation of a modest number of people) in that people will believe it was all a false fear, when it was prevented by specific actions taken in response to that fear.
But I'll take years of trying to correct that misconception over thousands of further deaths and another lockdown every day of the week.
Oh no, so when we ask for less they respond they are only able to give us what we originally asked for?
How are we going to live with that. Calling the EUs bluff was a brilliant move.
You presumably don't read the Guardian so may have missed their write up from yesterday. It very much reads as though the EU leaders have blinked rather than continue to leave things to the dead hand of Barnier:
"The signal that the EU’s 27 heads of state and government are prepared to turn their focus to the stalling talks will be a boost to Downing Street, where officials have emphasised the need for a resetting of Michel Barnier’s negotiating position."
It reminds me of the reports we used to get about Merkel intervening on the Irish border question.
You are going to be disappointed when she agrees a deal in September
My prediction is that there will be a repeat of what happened over the WA. Johnson will capitulate to the EU in such a way that he can pretend he has 'won'. Farage will point out that he capitulated, but because it will come at the end of a load of hysteria about No Deal, no-one will listen to him.
Regarding the thread, it is surely significant that Labour are now in the position of not only having the more favourably regarded leader (net +12% Starmer v -4% Johnson) but also being the more favourably (or at least less unfavourably) regarded party (net -8% compared to -11%). Starmer's lead is by no predictable if still unusual, but the recovery in attitudes to Labour as a party is something new. Labour had a net unfavourability rating of -26% as a party back in March.
Unfortunately, Ipsos Mori haven't published a voting intention poll since March. Given Labour's lead in both favourability ratings, it would be interesting to see whether Ipsos Mori are still showing them ahead in VI.
You are looking at net favourability, on favourability Boris and the Tories are still higher than Starmer and Labour
Preliminary research from Hong Kong found that around 20 per cent of COVID-19 sufferers are highly infectious, and responsible for 80 per cent of all transmissions.
However, 70 per cent of people infected with the virus do not pass it on to anyone else.
Seems to fit with the anecdotal examples (the club in Seoul, the festival in Germany, the barman in the Italian alps).
How do we identify and isolate the super-spreaders?
It seems to be super-spreader events, rather than people who are intrinsically more contagious, if I'm reading it correctly. So it requires controls or bans on things like choirs, crowded noisy bars, etc.
Large crowds with lots of screaming and shouting .....erhhh.. protests....
A bit of foresight and discipline could have resulted in a silent protest that would still have been striking and a lot less risky. Barnard Castle thinking from all concerned.
I was thinking something similar the other day, watching the protests.
How powerful would it have been for the genuine BLM group protestors to take over somewhere like Hyde Park, standing (or kneeling) still in a 2m grid, for an hour or so?
That would have got everyone to notice them. Instead, their cause gets diluted by the idiots who cause trouble. The issue is that the group organising the protests are quite happy that the 'others' get involved, even if they can deny being involved in the bad side of the protests themselves.
I don't think it's a question of "others" getting involved, how on earth would you stop those "others" from joining the bandwagon.
Seeing a potential second wave is maybe a few months away, lets hope for something quicker than 'calling for an inquiry'.
I think the second wave will turn out to be like the millennium bug.
It could be exactly like the Millennium Bug if it is prevented by the rapid test (and consequent self-isolation of a modest number of people) in that people will believe it was all a false fear, when it was prevented by specific actions taken in response to that fear.
But I'll take years of trying to correct that misconception over thousands of further deaths and another lockdown every day of the week.
I think it won't happen firstly because the virus seems to be declining in virility but second that people are alert to and very scared of the risk in a way they weren't in February and March and have changed their behaviour (in some instances permanently) in a way that'd prevent it happening again.
Have not read the details, William. Does this align to any extent with my prediction of "extension but no extension" and in particular -
FM ends 1 Jan 2021. All else the same. We pay for frictionless SM access for the foreseeable future or we get it in return for LPF guarantees. We defer agreeing divergence and tariffs and indeed might never do so.
Oh no, so when we ask for less they respond they are only able to give us what we originally asked for?
How are we going to live with that. Calling the EUs bluff was a brilliant move.
You presumably don't read the Guardian so may have missed their write up from yesterday. It very much reads as though the EU leaders have blinked rather than continue to leave things to the dead hand of Barnier:
"The signal that the EU’s 27 heads of state and government are prepared to turn their focus to the stalling talks will be a boost to Downing Street, where officials have emphasised the need for a resetting of Michel Barnier’s negotiating position."
I read that as meaning officials in Downing Street, not Brussels, emphasised the need for a resetting of Barnier's mandate.
Comments
He's like the Dan Hodges of US politics.
https://davidallengreen.com/2020/06/why-the-attorney-general-should-resign/
Does the fact that he did something he said he wouldn't do really fill you with confidence that he is the right man for the job?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-52938155
Justice for what? The individual didn't have COVID, so isn't responsible for her death. That is how justice works, you charge people based upon evidence.
There is a fast conflation of "xxx may" to "xxx does" to "We must immediately change to act as if xxx is true" as long as it frees up the person suggesting it from the restrictions.
Stuff from Alistair Haimes subscribing to the first two rationalisations were frequently posted in the early days of this to prove that no lockdown was necessary.
Thank Christ no-one in authority listened.
I've been suggesting areas to lift for literally months, so I'm obviously not against targeted lifting of restrictions (insert my tired "low hanging fruit" saying here).
However, a lot of the time, many suggestions from a number of people have so tinged with wanting to believe it's all gone away - either for everyone or for oneself - that it damages credibility and gets filtered out.
@Richard_Nabavi - I've gone on the commentary posted here by the advocates of "just lift lockdown now" and the claim that:
"- The differences between countries are not primarily down to government actions, but due to 'intrinsic' differences in the populations"
"- The similar mortality results between Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) are best explained by the fact that in reality there was no difference - the impact of the legal lockdown in Professor Friston's models "literally goes away"."
... which doesn't match up with "No-one is saying that. You've misunderstood Karl Friston's point, which is that as well as degree of lockdown and other known knowns (demographics etc), there seems to be an additional, unknown factor acting. As well as, not instead of."
I'm very agreeable to the latter. The comments by which Friston's views were led didn't remotely suggest that.
And I don't have spare half-hours to watch everything that's posted here; I wasted quite a bit of time on going through a posted video interview with a Swedish epidemiologist that provided zero extra illumination, so I'd rather not do so all the time.
But to clarify, I'm not relaxed about WH2020, far from it. Until the results are in I will be nervous. But I just have a feeling close to certainty that Trump will not be re-elected. I can intellectualize it with analytical arguments - and have done so once or twice - but this would be to not quite do it justice. It's a "big picture" intuition of the sort I get from time to time and which, when I do, I have learned to trust. My last 2 were that there would under no circumstances be a Ref2 on Brexit and that there would be a Con landslide on Dec 12th. So, you know - #trumptoast.
And my bias btw is in the other direction. Since I simply cannot bear the thought of him winning again, the dark pessimist in me seeks to find reasons that he will. Indeed I backed him to win in 2016 at 4/1 for partly this amateur and reprehensible "emotional hedge" reason, as well as genuinely thinking it was the value bet. Yet this time, despite this bias, I "know" he will lose. That is a measure of how confident I am.
But not relaxed. Not one iota relaxed. It means more to me that he is defeated than anything in my life right now, bar the obvious caveats.
Just a stream of utter nonsense.
Anyway, I remain teaching online, so not much time to post. School thinks it’s too risky (and, I imagine, economically difficult) to open until September.
"Does Covid raise everyone’s relative risk of dying by a similar amount? More evidence."
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/does-covid-raise-everyones-relative-risk-of-dying-by-a-similar-amount-more-evidence-e7d30abf6821
and
"What are the risks of COVID? And what is meant by ‘the risks of COVID’?"
https://medium.com/wintoncentre/what-are-the-risks-of-covid-and-what-is-meant-by-the-risks-of-covid-c828695aea69
They give me the impression of thinking that the curve in cases up and downward is somehow immutable and will just keep on going, to use a Brexiter patriotic metaphor like as V-1 whose engine has cut otu, or a V-2 post-boost phase.
But in reality the virus is like a snake with the lockdown boot on its neck - opr a fire with the fire blanket on it - the moment you release that it will metaphorically flare up agin in any way it can percolate through the different communities, just by reproducing as best it can. I'm wondering if we are seeing this release in England right now with the R up to 1.
And, like any good Darwinian organism, it will evolve increased or decreased lethality just as natural selection pressures dictate, whatever they are (including himan interventions) - this cannot be predicted easily.
I also expect him to (i) try and fix the election and (ii) when he loses claim it was fraudulent and not concede.
Furthermore and more important to me, he did what I said he should do, and what I said repeatedly to you when she was PM that May should do and as a result I completely and wholeheartedly approve.
Call me selfish but I'm even more keen on politicians doing what I think they should ...
2. It is perfectly possible that Sweden has a much higher death rate than Norway principally because of the differences in degree of lockdown, AND that the CFR in Germany is anomalously low compared with the UK, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. They are completely independent points.
3. Yes, Germany does have an anomalously low CFR - less than half or even a third of that of comparable Western European countries. Might this be explained purely by the fact that they tested many more asymptomatic people? Maybe, but it's a hell of a large effect, especially since they haven't tested a particularly large number of people.
4. It is also perfectly possible that the low incidence of cases in Germany compared with the Netherlands, France and Italy is not fully explained by the differences in lockdown or in the effectiveness of the test-and-trace.
Friston's point is that he's done the maths, and the identifiable factors aren't the whole explanation of the differences. I don't know if he's right, but hand-waving doesn't show he's wrong.
And then he did put a border in the Irish Sea.
We still have a handful of posters who admit to wanting him to win. Plus some who secretly do (I know who they are). Plus those who still wibble on about what a terrible choice it is, him or Biden, as if there is an equivalence there.
But you are solid enough on the matter, I sense. Which is all you can be.
There are a lot of people coming with their own angle and presenting it as irrefutably correct on skimpy data. A few more scientists saying "we don't know enough to be sure" would be welcome just now.
The Story Behind Bill Barr’s Unmarked Federal Agents
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/05/protests-washington-dc-federal-agents-law-enforcement-302551
...Concerningly, under the Trump administration, many of these agencies have been rudderless—overseen by rotating series of acting officials. More than half of all federal civilian law enforcement right now is being led by temporary acting officials, everything from ICE and CBP to DEA. (That calculation doesn’t even count the thousands of special agents in inspectors general offices that have recently seen an administrationwide purge of the government’s watchdogs.) The Bureau of Prisons was being overseen by an acting director last summer when Jeffrey Epstein managed to commit suicide while supposedly under strict monitoring. The DEA, with its special temporary powers for the protests, is currently led by an acting administrator who has been on the job for just days.
Such leadership voids are not solely a recent problem of the Trump administration: Thanks to pressure from the National Rifle Association on Republican lawmakers about the agency’s firearms investigations, the ATF has had a Senate-confirmed director for a total of only two years since 2003. Last month, the Trump administration withdrew its most recent nominee to be ATF director, Chuck Canterbury, a former police union leader who had been deemed by Republican senators as too liberal on guns. (Yes, you read that right: The former head of the Fraternal Order of Police was considered too liberal for the GOP.)
The proliferation of federal officers across government—and the proliferation of watchdogs watching those government agencies—means that you might one day be woken up by a SWAT team-style raid by the Department of Education or the EPA. And the number keeps growing: Congress was surprised when the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction—known as SIGAR—began procuring its own ammunition, flashing lights and body armor for its special agents. Just like its laws, there are too many federal agents for the government to keep track of.
The Covid-19 pandemic has even spawned what will apparently be the nation’s newest federal investigator: The Senate confirmed on Tuesday a special inspector general to oversee the $500 billion pandemic recovery spending. He, presumably, will be recruiting his own agents and equipment soon....
I rather suspect the Brexiteer loons won't fall for it though.
How are we going to live with that. Calling the EUs bluff was a brilliant move.
But that November ballot paper is dreadful. If that is indeed how it stays.
Though I hold out some hope of an orange jumpsuit in his future.
They can drop their onerous LPF demands on the basis that in the future there might be tariffs/quotas, while agreeing to a deal now. Then in reality the subtractions will probably never even happen since its not in anyone's interest to do so, but the EU have saved face on the reason they've caved on their original LPF demands.
Not an inspiring choice, no. But an easy one. Not about left v right or parties either. I can tell you this with no word of a lie - if a "Trump" as he is but now a left wing Dem was up against a "Biden" as he is but now a right wing Republican, I would vote Republican without a moment's hesitation. I cannot for the life of me understand or even empathize with anybody over here who does not feel the same.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling
A lot of trials were halted on the back of that report.
Unfortunately, Ipsos Mori haven't published a voting intention poll since March. Given Labour's lead in both favourability ratings, it would be interesting to see whether Ipsos Mori are still showing them ahead in VI.
It's that take on it that raises my hackles. Not people suggesting there a a bunch of unknowns. I've said so myself.
It's the people suggesting that unknowns may help and instantly advocating that we act as though these unknowns are certainly true and make other precautions immediately unnecessary.
Thought this was not meant to happen?
Was the relaxation policy based on what was best for London and not the rest of the country by any chance?
Activity returning . Lets hope we see it in improved figures and employment
If it can be made effectively self-contained and easily usable, and made widely available, it's an instant game-changer for any waves - whether the remnant of the first wave or any incipient second or subsequent waves.
This is R on 30th May (last Saturday) and reflects behaviour and initial infection around 23rd May (allowing for incubation period).
It will be interesting how he plays things post office (assuming no jail). Monetize monetize monetize, I guess.
https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/1268899166446592001
https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/1268934685503164427
We retain flexibility to change our rules, or reject a change to EU rules, but we don't have to pay for that flexibility with tariffs until we want to use it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/04/eu-leaders-will-intervene-in-brexit-talks-in-autumn-says-german-official
"The signal that the EU’s 27 heads of state and government are prepared to turn their focus to the stalling talks will be a boost to Downing Street, where officials have emphasised the need for a resetting of Michel Barnier’s negotiating position."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/05/airbus-looks-to-cut-500-uk-jobs-as-orders-dry-up
Rightly or wrongly there is a perception we entered lockdown because the virus was rampant in London.
And ended it because it was in steep decline in London.
It is very serious
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.03.20121020v1
The serosurvey is an alternative way to know the magnitude of the population infected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since the expansion of capacity of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was delayed. We herein report seroprevalence of COVID-19 accessed in the two community clinics in Tokyo. The point-of-care immunodiagnostic test was implemented to detect the SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibody in the peripheral capillary blood. The overall positive percentage of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody is 3.83% (95% confidence interval: 2.76-5.16) for the entire cohort (n =1,071). The central Tokyo of 23 special wards exhibited a significantly higher prevalence compared to the other area of Tokyo (p =0.02, 4.68% [95%CI: 3.08-6.79] versus 1.83 [0.68-3.95] in central and suburban Tokyo, respectively). The seroprevalence of the cohort surveyed in this study is low for herd immunity, which suggests the need for robust disease control and prevention. A community-based approach, rather than state or prefectural levels, is of importance to figure out profiles of the SARS-COV-2 outbreak...
After that, we don't have the deaths to verify against, but PHE has the daily infection count almost flatlining, whereas hospital case data would suggest they continued to drop. Struggling to reconcile the two.
Btw, any news of Vlad? Not got the virus, has he?
New admissions to hospital up for 2nd day in a row.
But total number in hospital down again quite well.
How powerful would it have been for the genuine BLM group protestors to take over somewhere like Hyde Park, standing (or kneeling) still in a 2m grid, for an hour or so?
That would have got everyone to notice them. Instead, their cause gets diluted by the idiots who cause trouble. The issue is that the group organising the protests are quite happy that the 'others' get involved, even if they can deny being involved in the bad side of the protests themselves.
But I'll take years of trying to correct that misconception over thousands of further deaths and another lockdown every day of the week.
England 0.65 (+0.07)
London 0.80 (+0.21)
I have no doubt that R is increasing, particularly in London, (but still below 1).
So I expect a long tail but it will fizzle out.
FM ends 1 Jan 2021. All else the same. We pay for frictionless SM access for the foreseeable future or we get it in return for LPF guarantees. We defer agreeing divergence and tariffs and indeed might never do so.