6 months....and still...still this shit every day...
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
The rise looks very bad now with all data included. 11.4k on the 30th, that's showing a big rise, but at least we'll get a real picture of what's happening in the country now rather than a partial one. We're currently running at around 12k cases per day, but it's not showing up too badly in the hospitalisation data.
Lots of young people eg students, low viral load, possibly less virulent strain. Boris needs to keep his nerve and keep the economy open.
Yes, completely agree. Students getting the virus probably isn't the worst thing in the world.
Need to keep all staff over say the age of 50 away from them though.
6 months....and still...still this shit every day...
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
I am applying to be a non-executive director on the Board of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The form asks for social media information and I am of course going to point them to what I write on my work blog and elsewhere.
Or do I simply tell them about the website and let them read what is written on there?
I doubt I’ll even get to the interview stage but I note from the information pack that winning candidates may even get to meet the Home Secretary. Which would be fun. For me.
Thanks in advance.
Trust your own judgment. It is good which is why you would make an excellent appointment. Good luck.
So that projection by the boffins might not be so bad after all.
The numbers are inevitably exponential but slower than shown by Whitty. He had numbers doubling every 7 days when it has been nearer to every 10 days.
I think it's a case of the K shaped outbreak. In university towns it will be a 2-3 day doubling time as students catch it very quickly and in other parts of the country it will be fairly stable.
The rise looks very bad now with all data included. 11.4k on the 30th, that's showing a big rise, but at least we'll get a real picture of what's happening in the country now rather than a partial one. We're currently running at around 12k cases per day, but it's not showing up too badly in the hospitalisation data.
Lots of young people eg students, low viral load, possibly less virulent strain. Boris needs to keep his nerve and keep the economy open.
Yes, completely agree. Students getting the virus probably isn't the worst thing in the world.
Need to keep all staff over say the age of 50 away from them though.
I was down in Fallowfield the other day, C-19 soup in Manchester.
Fair few older people working in the shops, bars and take away's around there that are at great danger right now.
Isn't the argument that they've already entered one country illegally, and should be claiming asylum there. The convention doesn't let you go from country to country until you've got to somewhere you like.
The point is that they're not fleeing war, persecution or famine, they're mostly coming from France - a safe first world country that's a signatory to many international human rights conventions.
The point is that regardless of whether they are failing to claim asylum at the first opportunity, if they end up in the UK then how they got in is not a legal invalidation of their claim.
They are no longer covered by the convention.
. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
Unless their life was threatened in France, of course.
Isn't that a different issue?
1) can they be prosecuted (or have measures imposed upon them) for illegal entry to the Country - yes 2) do they have a right to claim asylum and have that asylum claim assessed on its merits - also yes
The claim of asylum from France has no merits, as there's no war, famine or torture going on there.
If we were to allow asylum seekers from France, we should also be pushing for UN sanctions against France.
It is quite clear, from statements in the Guardian etc, that conditions in France are utterly intolerable in France for refugees.
Which means we have a failed state across the Channel.
The rise looks very bad now with all data included. 11.4k on the 30th, that's showing a big rise, but at least we'll get a real picture of what's happening in the country now rather than a partial one. We're currently running at around 12k cases per day, but it's not showing up too badly in the hospitalisation data.
Lots of young people eg students, low viral load, possibly less virulent strain. Boris needs to keep his nerve and keep the economy open.
Yes, completely agree. Students getting the virus probably isn't the worst thing in the world.
Need to keep all staff over say the age of 50 away from them though.
Yes, good thing the government has been pursuing the risk segmentation strategy for a few months and already knows how to do this. Oh right.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
We don't vaccinate everyone for flu, and that isn't 100% effective. Sometimes it is even useless!
I am applying to be a non-executive director on the Board of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The form asks for social media information and I am of course going to point them to what I write on my work blog and elsewhere.
Or do I simply tell them about the website and let them read what is written on there?
I doubt I’ll even get to the interview stage but I note from the information pack that winning candidates may even get to meet the Home Secretary. Which would be fun. For me.
Thanks in advance.
I'd highlight the two articles. They are good and if the assessors are put off by them then you are probably better off not involved.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I suspect something between the two. You vaccinate in phases starting with the most vulnerable, who presumably have fewer qualms, then you vaccinate as many of the rest as are willing to do it - the more the better.
So if there are professional city dwellers who won't admit to being Trumpsters. Does it not follow there will also be rural blue collar people who won't admit to supporting Biden? I should imagine the peer pressure in small town White Georgia for example would be equally as strong.
I am applying to be a non-executive director on the Board of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The form asks for social media information and I am of course going to point them to what I write on my work blog and elsewhere.
Or do I simply tell them about the website and let them read what is written on there?
I doubt I’ll even get to the interview stage but I note from the information pack that winning candidates may even get to meet the Home Secretary. Which would be fun. For me.
Thanks in advance.
Be upfront. It is far better not to be accepted by them in the first place than it is to be accepted and then "fired" later if they find things they do not like that you could have disclosed earlier on.
6 months....and still...still this shit every day...
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I suspect something between the two. You vaccinate in phases starting with the most vulnerable, who presumably have fewer qualms, then you vaccinate as many of the rest as are willing to do it - the more the better.
Yes, the idea that the government won't try and vaccinate as many people as possible won't stand up to scrutiny.
So if there are professional city dwellers who won't admit to being Trumpsters. Does it not follow there will also be rural blue collar people who won't admit to supporting Biden? I should imagine the peer pressure in small town White Georgia for example would be equally as strong.
I think we know that while urban professionals may be shy Trumpers, Biden is simply nowhere near as toxic to Suburban and rural blue collar America. It is that demographic that will get him over the line.
I stick with my Trump less than 200 EV prediction.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
We don't vaccinate everyone for flu, and that isn't 100% effective. Sometimes it is even useless!
Well, flu isn't a novel virus. Significant numbers have some immunity from years of exposure to it, so your herd immunity threshold for flu is lower. That means you can get away with a 40% effective vaccine distributed to 25% of the population. Even then you get years where lots of people die from it. Covid has no such built-in defence. There's evidence of some cross immunity with other coronaviruses, but mostly in poorer nations where people are more exposed to them. Flu also tends not to cause problems outside of respiratory issues, meaning that if you survive it you're probably not going to have too many knock-on effects down the line. The evidence with Sars-CoV-2 is that a significant minority have issues, even when completely healthy. I have to repeat this every time, but this is a nasty virus which is not comparable to the flu and that goes for both the virus itself and the vaccination campaign. If you don't vaccinate your primary vectors then you will get a lot of burden on the health system further down the line and potentially see more people die than necessary.
Besides which, if you vaccinate the whole population this year you can stop the epidemic dead, since you push your herd immunity up to the 50-60% that you need. You can then consider whether it's worth boosting the vaccine to everyone or just the flu-shot crew for years afterward depending on the epidemiologial data. It makes no sense to me to treat this like a flu vaccine.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
History will note this conflict between two small countries as the first truly 21st century way of waging a hot war. The Azeris are deploying UAVs to an unprecedented level.
The rise looks very bad now with all data included. 11.4k on the 30th, that's showing a big rise, but at least we'll get a real picture of what's happening in the country now rather than a partial one. We're currently running at around 12k cases per day, but it's not showing up too badly in the hospitalisation data.
Lots of young people eg students, low viral load, possibly less virulent strain. Boris needs to keep his nerve and keep the economy open.
Yes, completely agree. Students getting the virus probably isn't the worst thing in the world.
Need to keep all staff over say the age of 50 away from them though.
That statement is true at the start of every academic year.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
I am applying to be a non-executive director on the Board of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The form asks for social media information and I am of course going to point them to what I write on my work blog and elsewhere.
Or do I simply tell them about the website and let them read what is written on there?
I doubt I’ll even get to the interview stage but I note from the information pack that winning candidates may even get to meet the Home Secretary. Which would be fun. For me.
Thanks in advance.
Excellent advice already posted. Which does NOT stop me from throwing in my 2-cents!
> Publication is public, that's the point; you have ideas AND are willing & able to put your name & reputation with them.
> Publication (when not simply self-publication) is prestigious, in that it's proof that others besides yourself value or at least are listening to your arguments and contributions.
> Publication gives readers, including headhunters, interviewers, etc. opportunity to judge for themselves - and to convey to others - what they think, not just re: your views and values but also (and perhaps more to the point?) you ability to communicate, persuade, assess and strategize on behalf of your ideas AND your potential paymasters.
Nearly a five-fold increase in the in-hospital figures* over the course of the Malmesbury's chart. Very worrying.
* Ignoring the artificially inflated Scottish figures at the start. of it.
The UK is at about 1/8th of the first hospitalization peak and 1/20th of the death peak from the spring, though the latter lags the former and they both lag cases.
I don't have much sense of how much capacity there is in UK hospitals to deal with Covid cases and still maintain normal hospital activity.
Worth a read here. This isn't great but as pointed out the levelling off was suggested by REACT, ONS and Symptom Survey. It's possible that the testing system finally has gotten its arse into gear and is back to picking up more infections. Still the fact that those 16k weren't included in test and trace is a real problem. It looks like the test results got to the people who took the test but the contact tracers didn't get the information. I think it's long past time to kick Serco into the sea and hand this over to the local authorities.
Nearly a five-fold increase in the in-hospital figures* over the course of the Malmesbury's chart. Very worrying.
* Ignoring the artificially inflated Scottish figures at the start. of it.
Still only 1/8 of what it was at Easter.
My Trust Covid meetings now back to Mon, Wed, Fri, having gone down to once weekly over the summer.
No doubt the pace within Trusts have changed. I know over here in NI, Nightingale facilities that didn't even get beyond planning are back on the agenda.
Ok. Own up. whose been mucking about with the Infinite Improbability Drive?
It’s ok now. PM Osborne fresh from his narrow win over an Andy Burnham led Labour Party, says he’ll turn it back to normal on his way to the European summit next week, he’s just got to have a quick word with President Clinton first who’s on the campaign trail against Marco Rubio. She’s just made good on a promise to quadruple the funding of the Bill Gates’ pandemic prevention fund recently. Just in case.
Burnham might well have beaten Osborne in an election last year had he been elected Labour leader in 2015 and Remain won in 2016, certainly no way the Red Wall would have voted for Osborne over Burnham as they voted for Boris over Corbyn and the UKIP vote might even have been approaching 20% with the Tories leaking Leavers to Farage.
Though I agree Hillary would have pursued a more Merkel like approach to Covid had she won in 2016
Nearly a five-fold increase in the in-hospital figures* over the course of the Malmesbury's chart. Very worrying.
* Ignoring the artificially inflated Scottish figures at the start. of it.
The UK is at about 1/8th of the first hospitalization peak and 1/20th of the death peak from the spring, though the latter lags the former and they both lag cases.
I don't have much sense of how much capacity there is in UK hospitals to deal with Covid cases and still maintain normal hospital activity.
Indeed but admissions haven't dropped off yet so in-hospital figures are going to continue to rise. I don't see a sign from Malmesbury's data we've hit the second peak yet.
David Nabarro, special envoy to the World Health Organization on Covid-19, also told the FT that addressing the coronavirus crisis was “not going to be a case of everyone getting vaccinated”.
“There will be a definite analysis of who is the priority for the vaccine, based on where they live, their occupation and their age bracket,” he said. “We’re not fundamentally using the vaccine to create population immunity, we’re just changing the likelihood people will get harmed or hurt. It will be strategic.”
Vaccine != herd immunity is completely new. The closer a vaccine gets the further away it gets and the less of a holy grail it turns out to be - just one more tool in the box along with masks and lockdowns.
I am applying to be a non-executive director on the Board of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The form asks for social media information and I am of course going to point them to what I write on my work blog and elsewhere.
Or do I simply tell them about the website and let them read what is written on there?
I doubt I’ll even get to the interview stage but I note from the information pack that winning candidates may even get to meet the Home Secretary. Which would be fun. For me.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, tell them, and point to those articles. Full disclosure is good.
What's more - what is there to hide? If you stand by what you wrote, why hide it? If they don't like it, do you want the position?
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
6 months....and still...still this shit every day...
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
I really don't understand why you're getting so worked up about this. With the exception of the reporting cock-up over the last few days, the final curves for the cases by testing date and reporting date are damn near identical. The figure announced by reporting date usually turns out to be pretty close to the eventual actual figure for that date, so it really doesn't matter if the press use that figure.
Nearly a five-fold increase in the in-hospital figures* over the course of the Malmesbury's chart. Very worrying.
* Ignoring the artificially inflated Scottish figures at the start. of it.
The UK is at about 1/8th of the first hospitalization peak and 1/20th of the death peak from the spring, though the latter lags the former and they both lag cases.
I don't have much sense of how much capacity there is in UK hospitals to deal with Covid cases and still maintain normal hospital activity.
We can switch capacity, by using surgical wards for Covid, and operating theatres and personnel as ICU.
We cannot do planned operations (apart from daycase) at the same time though.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I suspect something between the two. You vaccinate in phases starting with the most vulnerable, who presumably have fewer qualms, then you vaccinate as many of the rest as are willing to do it - the more the better.
Yes, the idea that the government won't try and vaccinate as many people as possible won't stand up to scrutiny.
There is a serious issue with vaccinating children, though. There’s no safety data at all - while we know that the risk to them from the virus itself is very low. The excellent case for accelerated approval for adults is one thing; kids another.
6 months....and still...still this shit every day...
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
I really don't understand why you're getting so worked up about this. With the exception of the reporting cock-up over the last few days, the final curves for the cases by testing date and reporting date are damn near identical. The figure announced by reporting date usually turns out to be pretty close to the eventual actual figure for that date, so it really doesn't matter if the press use that figure.
Cases have not near quadrupled in 2 days as reported above.
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I suspect something between the two. You vaccinate in phases starting with the most vulnerable, who presumably have fewer qualms, then you vaccinate as many of the rest as are willing to do it - the more the better.
Yes, the idea that the government won't try and vaccinate as many people as possible won't stand up to scrutiny.
There is a serious issue with vaccinating children, though. There’s no safety data at all - while we know that the risk to them from the virus itself is very low. The excellent case for accelerated approval for adults is one thing; kids another.
Yeah, as also know that COVID seems to have a different reaction in kids than in adults so I would expect a separate study to be done for them to ensure safety. Though the risk of serious cases or death is extremely low in kids so there probably isn't a lot of urgency to vaccinate them anyway.
6 months....and still...still this shit every day...
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
I really don't understand why you're getting so worked up about this. With the exception of the reporting cock-up over the last few days, the final curves for the cases by testing date and reporting date are damn near identical. The figure announced by reporting date usually turns out to be pretty close to the eventual actual figure for that date, so it really doesn't matter if the press use that figure.
Cases have not near quadrupled in 2 days as reported above.
As I said: "with the exception of the reporting cock-up over the last few days".
Worth a read here. This isn't great but as pointed out the levelling off was suggested by REACT, ONS and Symptom Survey. It's possible that the testing system finally has gotten its arse into gear and is back to picking up more infections. Still the fact that those 16k weren't included in test and trace is a real problem. It looks like the test results got to the people who took the test but the contact tracers didn't get the information. I think it's long past time to kick Serco into the sea and hand this over to the local authorities.
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Maybe I have had too much absinthe tonight?
I think he definitely got Covid. The only plausible route for conspiracy theories is how bad it has been.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I suspect something between the two. You vaccinate in phases starting with the most vulnerable, who presumably have fewer qualms, then you vaccinate as many of the rest as are willing to do it - the more the better.
Yes, the idea that the government won't try and vaccinate as many people as possible won't stand up to scrutiny.
There is a serious issue with vaccinating children, though. There’s no safety data at all - while we know that the risk to them from the virus itself is very low. The excellent case for accelerated approval for adults is one thing; kids another.
I can absolutely understand not vaccinating children until a Covid vaccine specifically synthesised for the under 16s can be developed (like the nasal flu vaccine). They're generally not as prone to being infection vector or as ill from what we can gather.
We absolutely should be trying our damnedest to vaccinate anyone over 16 though. And I say that as someone who will probably get the vaccine in the fourth wave.
6 months....and still...still this shit every day...
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
I really don't understand why you're getting so worked up about this. With the exception of the reporting cock-up over the last few days, the final curves for the cases by testing date and reporting date are damn near identical. The figure announced by reporting date usually turns out to be pretty close to the eventual actual figure for that date, so it really doesn't matter if the press use that figure.
Cases have not near quadrupled in 2 days as reported above.
As I said: "with the exception of the reporting cock-up over the last few days".
Edit: Projecting from the graph for cases by reporting date, the actual figure for today probably is around the 20,000 mark. It is clear that cases are continuing to rise exponentially, and that is the main thing to take home.
Worth a read here. This isn't great but as pointed out the levelling off was suggested by REACT, ONS and Symptom Survey. It's possible that the testing system finally has gotten its arse into gear and is back to picking up more infections. Still the fact that those 16k weren't included in test and trace is a real problem. It looks like the test results got to the people who took the test but the contact tracers didn't get the information. I think it's long past time to kick Serco into the sea and hand this over to the local authorities.
Worth a read here. This isn't great but as pointed out the levelling off was suggested by REACT, ONS and Symptom Survey. It's possible that the testing system finally has gotten its arse into gear and is back to picking up more infections. Still the fact that those 16k weren't included in test and trace is a real problem. It looks like the test results got to the people who took the test but the contact tracers didn't get the information. I think it's long past time to kick Serco into the sea and hand this over to the local authorities.
Massaging data like that is never a good idea. One reason I tend to believe in what I produce is because I don't twiddle it to make it "better"
The data added is from tests done by Universities, using their own medical labs to process them.
The issue here is that this is going to make the positivity rate useless because we don't know how many tests are being processed in uni labs. If the government had brought them into the system from day one as was suggested it wouldn't be an issue.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I suspect something between the two. You vaccinate in phases starting with the most vulnerable, who presumably have fewer qualms, then you vaccinate as many of the rest as are willing to do it - the more the better.
Yes, the idea that the government won't try and vaccinate as many people as possible won't stand up to scrutiny.
There is a serious issue with vaccinating children, though. There’s no safety data at all - while we know that the risk to them from the virus itself is very low. The excellent case for accelerated approval for adults is one thing; kids another.
Yeah, as also know that COVID seems to have a different reaction in kids than in adults so I would expect a separate study to be done for them to ensure safety. Though the risk of serious cases or death is extremely low in kids so there probably isn't a lot of urgency to vaccinate them anyway.
There might be if they aren't allowed to start shutting the windows in schools soon!
Worth a read here. This isn't great but as pointed out the levelling off was suggested by REACT, ONS and Symptom Survey. It's possible that the testing system finally has gotten its arse into gear and is back to picking up more infections. Still the fact that those 16k weren't included in test and trace is a real problem. It looks like the test results got to the people who took the test but the contact tracers didn't get the information. I think it's long past time to kick Serco into the sea and hand this over to the local authorities.
Massaging data like that is never a good idea. One reason I tend to believe in what I produce is because I don't twiddle it to make it "better"
The data added is from tests done by Universities, using their own medical labs to process them.
Sorry Malmesbury, you're better at data science than me. What is different between the two datasets?
How do we know this is all university labs by the way? Not that I think you're untrustworthy, but this sort of thing can become "received wisdom" without sources.
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I suspect something between the two. You vaccinate in phases starting with the most vulnerable, who presumably have fewer qualms, then you vaccinate as many of the rest as are willing to do it - the more the better.
Yes, the idea that the government won't try and vaccinate as many people as possible won't stand up to scrutiny.
Kate Bingham clearly thinks differently, and she kind of is the government for these purposes.
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Maybe I have had too much absinthe tonight?
I think he definitely got Covid. The only plausible route for conspiracy theories is how bad it has been.
Trump definitely got Covid and I am sure was the main driver behind covering up how serious it was, somewhat exposing his doctor who was only authorised to tell positive news but didn't want to actually lie either.
On the asssumption that Trump will make a good enough recovery to continue his campaign, he will obviously leverage his infection for his campaign
Comments
Coronavirus cases in the UK today leapt to almost 23,000 in a day sending the total number of infections past the 500,000 mark. In another hammer-blow to hopes that the number of Covid-19 infections are levelling out, the latest figures show there were 22,961 Covid-19 cases recorded today.
The figure is a significant jump from the 12,800 cases recorded yesterday - which in itself was nearly double Friday's 6,968 recorded cases.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8803573/UK-records-28-coronavirus-deaths-hospitals-preliminary-toll.html
Fair few older people working in the shops, bars and take away's around there that are at great danger right now.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
Does it not follow there will also be rural blue collar people who won't admit to supporting Biden?
I should imagine the peer pressure in small town White Georgia for example would be equally as strong.
If you PM me with an email address, I can add it to the access rights for the Google Drive folder I keep the spreadsheet data in.
https://twitter.com/ScotRail/status/1312856769685848064
Might cause rattling cages in Bute House.
I stick with my Trump less than 200 EV prediction.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/georgia/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_biden-6974.html
Besides which, if you vaccinate the whole population this year you can stop the epidemic dead, since you push your herd immunity up to the 50-60% that you need. You can then consider whether it's worth boosting the vaccine to everyone or just the flu-shot crew for years afterward depending on the epidemiologial data. It makes no sense to me to treat this like a flu vaccine.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
* Ignoring the artificially inflated Scottish figures at the start. of it.
My Trust Covid meetings now back to Mon, Wed, Fri, having gone down to once weekly over the summer.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
> Publication is public, that's the point; you have ideas AND are willing & able to put your name & reputation with them.
> Publication (when not simply self-publication) is prestigious, in that it's proof that others besides yourself value or at least are listening to your arguments and contributions.
> Publication gives readers, including headhunters, interviewers, etc. opportunity to judge for themselves - and to convey to others - what they think, not just re: your views and values but also (and perhaps more to the point?) you ability to communicate, persuade, assess and strategize on behalf of your ideas AND your potential paymasters.
Trent Poly is closer to the city centre.
I don't have much sense of how much capacity there is in UK hospitals to deal with Covid cases and still maintain normal hospital activity.
Nottingham is on the outskirts, but vast numbers of 2nd year students live in Lenton which is walking distance (easily) to city centre.
https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1312864040583077892
Though I agree Hillary would have pursued a more Merkel like approach to Covid had she won in 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85PcMJ9D8X0
David Nabarro, special envoy to the World Health Organization on Covid-19, also told the FT that addressing the coronavirus crisis was “not going to be a case of everyone getting vaccinated”.
“There will be a definite analysis of who is the priority for the vaccine, based on where they live, their occupation and their age bracket,” he said. “We’re not fundamentally using the vaccine to create population immunity, we’re just changing the likelihood people will get harmed or hurt. It will be strategic.”
Vaccine != herd immunity is completely new. The closer a vaccine gets the further away it gets and the less of a holy grail it turns out to be - just one more tool in the box along with masks and lockdowns.
What's more - what is there to hide? If you stand by what you wrote, why hide it? If they don't like it, do you want the position?
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
We cannot do planned operations (apart from daycase) at the same time though.
There’s no safety data at all - while we know that the risk to them from the virus itself is very low.
The excellent case for accelerated approval for adults is one thing; kids another.
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Maybe I have had too much absinthe tonight?
Trump meets his supporters
Not seen the footage but really
The data added is from tests done by Universities, using their own medical labs to process them.
We absolutely should be trying our damnedest to vaccinate anyone over 16 though. And I say that as someone who will probably get the vaccine in the fourth wave.
How do we know this is all university labs by the way? Not that I think you're untrustworthy, but this sort of thing can become "received wisdom" without sources.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
On the asssumption that Trump will make a good enough recovery to continue his campaign, he will obviously leverage his infection for his campaign