politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020: The betting markets move against there being a brokere
Comments
-
Agreed.Foxy said:
As a fifty something male with hypertension, I stand around a 2% chance of dying of COVID19 if I get it. That is a lot higher than background risk.Andy_JS said:
But that's no different to the people who are most likely to die from coronavirus. Elderly people with pre-existing conditions.northernpowerhouse2 said:
Because it was largely people who were weakened or/and elderly. Flu hastened a death. But that death was coming soon and probably by whatever infected them.noneoftheabove said:
In 1989 apparently 26,000 people died of flu in the UK. I cant it even recall it being in the news that year? I can clearly recall Hillsborough, Gorbachev, high inflation, Guildford four, Marchioness so think I was paying attention.IanB2 said:
No idea. But the winter before last, flu deaths in the UK were running at five every day. I must have been on holiday because I don’t remember the wall to wall media coverage.alex_ said:A question on COVID-19 vs “normal” flu (which most people self misdiagnose).
How much of the difference is likely related to one factor (vaccination of high percentage of at risk groups)? And how much is down to COVID-19 being (presumably) more dangerous for other reasons? Eg. Higher propensity to spread, higher (normalised ie. imagining their was no vaccine for flu) mortality?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/which-groups-are-most-at-risk-from-the-coronavirus/
I dislike too the implication that seventy and eighty somethings with either diabetes or cardiovascular disease are on their last legs anyway. These are our parents and grandparents, our friends and family. They are contributing in a major way to our society and cultural life. I value them and want them to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.
And not just because I have money on Biden.1 -
-
I hate you.Nigelb said:You're welcome....
https://twitter.com/IsabelOtt/status/12353716181652357131 -
What about if they are Leave voters?Foxy said:
As a fifty something male with hypertension, I stand around a 2% chance of dying of COVID19 if I get it. That is a lot higher than background risk.Andy_JS said:
But that's no different to the people who are most likely to die from coronavirus. Elderly people with pre-existing conditions.northernpowerhouse2 said:
Because it was largely people who were weakened or/and elderly. Flu hastened a death. But that death was coming soon and probably by whatever infected them.noneoftheabove said:
In 1989 apparently 26,000 people died of flu in the UK. I cant it even recall it being in the news that year? I can clearly recall Hillsborough, Gorbachev, high inflation, Guildford four, Marchioness so think I was paying attention.IanB2 said:
No idea. But the winter before last, flu deaths in the UK were running at five every day. I must have been on holiday because I don’t remember the wall to wall media coverage.alex_ said:A question on COVID-19 vs “normal” flu (which most people self misdiagnose).
How much of the difference is likely related to one factor (vaccination of high percentage of at risk groups)? And how much is down to COVID-19 being (presumably) more dangerous for other reasons? Eg. Higher propensity to spread, higher (normalised ie. imagining their was no vaccine for flu) mortality?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/which-groups-are-most-at-risk-from-the-coronavirus/
I dislike too the implication that seventy and eighty somethings with either diabetes or cardiovascular disease are on their last legs anyway. These are our parents and grandparents, our friends and family. They are contributing in a major way to our society and cultural life. I value them and want them to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.
0 -
One of the problem with US politics (and, let’s face it, closer to home) is the widening chasm between the characteristics of a good candidate for election, and the characteristics of a good President. With added complications that to become President, candidates need to be good when pursuing the votes of completely different electorates.IanB2 said:
The trouble with the way politics has gone is that people who looked shit at the time look half decent viewed against the standard of those that followed.Gardenwalker said:
Mitt was not shit.Alanbrooke said:
I'll see your Mondale and raise you Mitt RomneyGardenwalker said:There are no pro-Biden voters.
There are only anti-Sanders, anti-Bloomberg voters etc.
He is a genuinely shit candidate, the worst from a major party since Mondale.
It’s just that anyone was gonna look rubbish against Obama.2 -
The half-life of political standards is quite short.IanB2 said:
The trouble with the way politics has gone is that people who looked shit at the time look half decent viewed against the standard of those that followed.Gardenwalker said:
Mitt was not shit.Alanbrooke said:
I'll see your Mondale and raise you Mitt RomneyGardenwalker said:There are no pro-Biden voters.
There are only anti-Sanders, anti-Bloomberg voters etc.
He is a genuinely shit candidate, the worst from a major party since Mondale.
It’s just that anyone was gonna look rubbish against Obama.0 -
COVID. 19. Ta-loo-rye-ay!TheScreamingEagles said:
I hate you.Nigelb said:You're welcome....
https://twitter.com/IsabelOtt/status/1235371618165235713
COVID. 19. Ta-loo-rye-ay!
How you have grown!
By power laws shown!
Ohhhh, what I mean...0 -
Your published diaries will live through the generations.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.0 -
Inexplicably, shes's available in the 27-34 range this morning.Sandpit said:On topic, I’ve been pointing out for weeks that the Betfair Dem Nom market has been very under-round, it got to 87% at one point, based on the back prices of layable candidates.
Biden now being 1.19 has finally made the market exceed 100%.
Still six layable candidates though, there’s 40 to lay Hillary Clinton if 2.5% return in 4 months is better than your bank account pays.
I can't actually lay her anymore as I've reached my Betfair Exchange exposure limit!1 -
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.0 -
She was the future once.CarlottaVance said:R Wrong Daily blathering on R4 - won’t answer a straight question.
Briefly.2 -
Has Maine not been settled yet?0
-
What are the implications for your mental and physical health of doing so even if you have the choice? Probably worse 99% of the time.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.0 -
A key indicator for me is that all the ministers who go on tv (inc Sturgeon) look absolutely shattered. They are working v hard behind the scenes.Foxy said:
ROK and China show that the way to control this is to stamp on it hard with lockdowns, quarantine and mass testing.Gardenwalker said:Bad news for panic merchants, South Korea’s new reported cases just 145 today.
Was 400/500 a day, earlier this week.
If we are efficient at this then we may well miss the lesson. With "only" hundreds of deaths, people will say "what was that fuss about?"
If we are inefficient we well get the lesson delivered fairly brutally that "this is not just flu".1 -
If you compare this with previous novel disease outbreaks, the ability to trace how it spreads as it's happening is amazing:
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1235432204060131329
All that the US lacks right now is someone to arrange a coordinated use of the assets available to them...0 -
Ironically, one of the few PBers who could do that reasonably comfortably, is also one of the chief panic merchants.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.2 -
Well, better than solitary confinement or a short prison sentence.noneoftheabove said:
What are the implications for your mental and physical health of doing so even if you have the choice? Probably worse 99% of the time.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.
You have TV, phone, internet, you can work too, and go out in the garden whenever you want.
If I was single and didn't need to travel for work I'd do it. I've had asthma and pneumonia before and have no desire to repeat the experience.1 -
Have you buried the cheese, yet ?Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
0 -
In WW2, the average age of a combat coronavirus was 26.
In Vietnam it was..4 -
10 serious ill people - not a problem share them around local hospitals.Gardenwalker said:
I don’t buy these figures from WHO.CarlottaVance said:
I think “wrong” is the word you’re looking for.IanB2 said:
Those are hooky figures, though. It is too early to say.Mysticrose said:
The death rate for this is around 3.4% compared to flu's 0.1%.IanB2 said:
My guess is that as soon as Brits are dying daily, it will be plastered all over the pages even at levels still in the same ballpark as normal flu.SouthamObserver said:
Presumably we’ll get the flu deaths as usual, the COVID-19 ones are extra. That’s the problem (I assume): this is on top of all the regular stuff, it’s fast-moving and we just don’t know enough about it.IanB2 said:
No idea. But the winter before last, flu deaths in the UK were running at five every day. I must have been on holiday because I don’t remember the wall to wall media coverage.alex_ said:A question on COVID-19 vs “normal” flu (which most people self misdiagnose).
How much of the difference is likely related to one factor (vaccination of high percentage of at risk groups)? And how much is down to COVID-19 being (presumably) more dangerous for other reasons? Eg. Higher propensity to spread, higher (normalised ie. imagining their was no vaccine for flu) mortality?
So 35x more deadly if you catch it.
Why are deaths in S Korea, Singapore etc so low?
100 seriously ill people - getting to be a problem.
1000 seriously ill people - definitely starting to be a problem
10000 seriously ill people - yep that's a problem.
If people don't get infected you haven't got a problem but as the number of ill people rises you get to the point where you can't treat everyone. And that's when the fatality count starts creeping up again.0 -
Thanks!Foxy said:
As a fifty something male with hypertension, I stand around a 2% chance of dying of COVID19 if I get it. That is a lot higher than background risk.Andy_JS said:
But that's no different to the people who are most likely to die from coronavirus. Elderly people with pre-existing conditions.northernpowerhouse2 said:
Because it was largely people who were weakened or/and elderly. Flu hastened a death. But that death was coming soon and probably by whatever infected them.noneoftheabove said:
In 1989 apparently 26,000 people died of flu in the UK. I cant it even recall it being in the news that year? I can clearly recall Hillsborough, Gorbachev, high inflation, Guildford four, Marchioness so think I was paying attention.IanB2 said:
No idea. But the winter before last, flu deaths in the UK were running at five every day. I must have been on holiday because I don’t remember the wall to wall media coverage.alex_ said:A question on COVID-19 vs “normal” flu (which most people self misdiagnose).
How much of the difference is likely related to one factor (vaccination of high percentage of at risk groups)? And how much is down to COVID-19 being (presumably) more dangerous for other reasons? Eg. Higher propensity to spread, higher (normalised ie. imagining their was no vaccine for flu) mortality?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/which-groups-are-most-at-risk-from-the-coronavirus/
I dislike too the implication that seventy and eighty somethings with either diabetes or cardiovascular disease are on their last legs anyway. These are our parents and grandparents, our friends and family. They are contributing in a major way to our society and cultural life. I value them and want them to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.
Just off to a U3a Group; Photography.0 -
Fiddle with what?Gardenwalker said:
Covid-19Nigelb said:You're welcome....
https://twitter.com/IsabelOtt/status/1235371618165235713
Aw c’mon, quarantine!
You came in on a plane
From Wuhan, it’s insane.
You in that dress,
Eating bat soup I guess
Verge on dirty,
Oh Covid-19!
(Fiddle break)0 -
If he'd been in the French Army on the Maginot line in 1940 he'd have run back behind the lines all the way to Brest at the first sound of a bumble bee.Gardenwalker said:
Ironically, one of the few PBers who could do that reasonably comfortably, is also one of the chief panic merchants.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.1 -
Not your hands and your face...Charles said:
Fiddle with what?Gardenwalker said:
Covid-19Nigelb said:You're welcome....
https://twitter.com/IsabelOtt/status/1235371618165235713
Aw c’mon, quarantine!
You came in on a plane
From Wuhan, it’s insane.
You in that dress,
Eating bat soup I guess
Verge on dirty,
Oh Covid-19!
(Fiddle break)0 -
Emergency preparedness at a local level is something to behold. Of course once it reaches a certain point you become overwhelmed and it all falls done. But they are ready...Charles said:
A key indicator for me is that all the ministers who go on tv (inc Sturgeon) look absolutely shattered. They are working v hard behind the scenes.Foxy said:
ROK and China show that the way to control this is to stamp on it hard with lockdowns, quarantine and mass testing.Gardenwalker said:Bad news for panic merchants, South Korea’s new reported cases just 145 today.
Was 400/500 a day, earlier this week.
If we are efficient at this then we may well miss the lesson. With "only" hundreds of deaths, people will say "what was that fuss about?"
If we are inefficient we well get the lesson delivered fairly brutally that "this is not just flu".0 -
May i ask what an exposure limit is? I thought you had to back any exposure with cash up front so if you hit your limit you could top up? Or do you mean a self imposed limit? Or is there a hard limit?Casino_Royale said:
Inexplicably, shes's available in the 27-34 range this morning.Sandpit said:On topic, I’ve been pointing out for weeks that the Betfair Dem Nom market has been very under-round, it got to 87% at one point, based on the back prices of layable candidates.
Biden now being 1.19 has finally made the market exceed 100%.
Still six layable candidates though, there’s 40 to lay Hillary Clinton if 2.5% return in 4 months is better than your bank account pays.
I can't actually lay her anymore as I've reached my Betfair Exchange exposure limit!0 -
Everyone has a default exposure limit (across all markets) of £5k, I think. That's in addition to your daily deposit limit, which you can set at any level you like (I haven't got one).Philip_Thompson said:
May i ask what an exposure limit is? I thought you had to back any exposure with cash up front so if you hit your limit you could top up? Or do you mean a self imposed limit? Or is there a hard limit?Casino_Royale said:
Inexplicably, shes's available in the 27-34 range this morning.Sandpit said:On topic, I’ve been pointing out for weeks that the Betfair Dem Nom market has been very under-round, it got to 87% at one point, based on the back prices of layable candidates.
Biden now being 1.19 has finally made the market exceed 100%.
Still six layable candidates though, there’s 40 to lay Hillary Clinton if 2.5% return in 4 months is better than your bank account pays.
I can't actually lay her anymore as I've reached my Betfair Exchange exposure limit!
You have to formally request an exposure limit increase from Betfair to up it, I think.
This is probably a good idea.0 -
Everyone has to make their own choices but Id prefer to carry on as normally as possible whilst following govt guidelines. Two big reasons are there is zero guarantee that 2-3 months will stop you getting coronavirus, it may even be more prevalent in the autumn/next winter, and that getting it early may be better than getting it late.Casino_Royale said:
Well, better than solitary confinement or a short prison sentence.noneoftheabove said:
What are the implications for your mental and physical health of doing so even if you have the choice? Probably worse 99% of the time.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.
You have TV, phone, internet, you can work too, and go out in the garden whenever you want.
If I was single and didn't need to travel for work I'd do it. I've had asthma and pneumonia before and have no desire to repeat the experience.1 -
Rubbish. He must be down to a bottle and a half of the previous 17 cases of wine he was hoarding. Perhaps that is what he was doing in and around the supermarkets of Essex yesterday - trying to find his favourite brand of Liebfraumilch.Gardenwalker said:
Ironically, one of the few PBers who could do that reasonably comfortably, is also one of the chief panic merchants.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.0 -
As an exercise this morning I thought I would notice how many times I was inclined to touch my face apropos of nothing over a half hour period. The answer is a lot.eek said:
Not your hands and your face...Charles said:
Fiddle with what?Gardenwalker said:
Covid-19Nigelb said:You're welcome....
https://twitter.com/IsabelOtt/status/1235371618165235713
Aw c’mon, quarantine!
You came in on a plane
From Wuhan, it’s insane.
You in that dress,
Eating bat soup I guess
Verge on dirty,
Oh Covid-19!
(Fiddle break)0 -
Last heard of surrounded by boxes of latex gloves avidly reading a book about the Black Death, in between googling for the worst stories on the virus.TOPPING said:
Rubbish. He must be down to a bottle and a half of the previous 17 cases of wine he was hoarding. Perhaps that is what he was doing in and around the supermarkets of Essex yesterday - trying to find his favourite brand of Liebfraumilch.Gardenwalker said:
Ironically, one of the few PBers who could do that reasonably comfortably, is also one of the chief panic merchants.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.0 -
Markets are starting to consider having another bad day.0
-
I think he would have been shot before that.Casino_Royale said:
If he'd been in the French Army on the Maginot line in 1940 he'd have run back behind the lines all the way to Brest at the first sound of a bumble bee.Gardenwalker said:
Ironically, one of the few PBers who could do that reasonably comfortably, is also one of the chief panic merchants.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.0 -
Dr Fox,
Biden needs a younger, fitter running mate, and that would frighten Trump more. Step forward Amy... "
My political maxim … pick the prettiest woman; they're all useless anyway so you may as well make them decorative.0 -
I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?0
-
Burlington was considered - and voted - one of the best-run places in America when he was Mayor, and he also got more amendments passed than any other congressman. He's no Corbyn, really. The question is whether he can translate that into his public image by ditching what is, for america, the politically toxic socialist label, and then whether he has the potential build a strong enough movement outside congress, while president, to move his plans on.Foxy said:Biden is not a great candidate, and I share the doubts about his mental fragility (though Trump's coherence has deteriorated a lot over the decade too).
Sanders is however a worse candidate. Quite independent of his own health issues and self proclaimed socialism, I don't think Bernie has ever demonstrated much political skill at getting anything done. He is an effective rabble rouser, but little more. No way could Bernie get his plans through Congress and Senate.
Biden needs a younger, fitter running mate, and that would frighten Trump more. Step forward Amy...0 -
One hears this a lot. The less harmful form needs to both evolve, and out-compete the more harmful out of existence. This doesn't always happen: smallpox and cowpox (dna not rna viruses, but the point stands) coexisted happily for millennia.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
0 -
"A fight over scarce toilet paper in Australia has ended with a man being tasered, local police said on Thursday.
The officers were called to a store in the town of Tamworth in New South Wales, after he allegedly lashed out and attacked another customer and supermarket staff.
When he was apprehended by police he attacked the officers who then tasered him."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-517477820 -
Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.0 -
Well said.Foxy said:
As a fifty something male with hypertension, I stand around a 2% chance of dying of COVID19 if I get it. That is a lot higher than background risk.Andy_JS said:
But that's no different to the people who are most likely to die from coronavirus. Elderly people with pre-existing conditions.northernpowerhouse2 said:
Because it was largely people who were weakened or/and elderly. Flu hastened a death. But that death was coming soon and probably by whatever infected them.noneoftheabove said:
In 1989 apparently 26,000 people died of flu in the UK. I cant it even recall it being in the news that year? I can clearly recall Hillsborough, Gorbachev, high inflation, Guildford four, Marchioness so think I was paying attention.IanB2 said:
No idea. But the winter before last, flu deaths in the UK were running at five every day. I must have been on holiday because I don’t remember the wall to wall media coverage.alex_ said:A question on COVID-19 vs “normal” flu (which most people self misdiagnose).
How much of the difference is likely related to one factor (vaccination of high percentage of at risk groups)? And how much is down to COVID-19 being (presumably) more dangerous for other reasons? Eg. Higher propensity to spread, higher (normalised ie. imagining their was no vaccine for flu) mortality?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/which-groups-are-most-at-risk-from-the-coronavirus/
I dislike too the implication that seventy and eighty somethings with either diabetes or cardiovascular disease are on their last legs anyway. These are our parents and grandparents, our friends and family. They are contributing in a major way to our society and cultural life. I value them and want them to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.
We need to realise there is a difference between considering an epidemic on the public health level and on the personal level.
Looking at this from on a national/international level, with no intervention then a significant proportion of the population will be ill having a large impact on the economy. However the overal profile of those who die will mostly be economically unproductive people (i.e. retired) and so economic impact of the deaths will mainly be the ability of the health providers to to cope with lots of dying people in 3 to 6 months.
On a personal level, it is still unlikely that *you* will get ill. *If* you get symptoms though it will not be be pleasant, you will remember it for years. If your friend, aunt, father or partner happens to be one of those who dies, then it will be devastating. The epidemic will not seem to you like it was just "pruning back the dead wood".
Understanding that health works on these two levels is very important. Blatantly ignoring it is irresponsible, and I mean both scaremongering and downplaying the pandemic.
0 -
The Iceberg model. Unlike for the Titanic, the iceberg in this instance is a good thing.Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.0 -
I see the government is reviewing its plan to release information about the geographical scope of the contagion once a week only. Good. What a stupid idea that was.0
-
"Astoundingly irresponsible"Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/12354096601040158730 -
That type of attack may not be as much of a winner as you seem to think it will be. It's not the same as the "lying Ted" or "crooked Hilary" stuff, many will see it as a very low and mean way of attacking someone. Obviously the base will love it but he needs more than the base.MarqueeMark said:
You can just imagine Trump:YBarddCwsc said:
I think his medical condition will be ruthlessly & publicly exposed in the Presidential fight by someone who will have no scruples.
"You know, I like Joe. Nice guy. He's been a great public servant for America. But he's lost it. (Doing the spinning finger, indicating Joe's lost his marbles.) He's so far gone, he can't even rememebr how crooked he was. We have to keep reminding him...."
It's not as though there are not strong doubts about Trump's mental state. "Clinically insane" was I think how YBarddCwsc described him.0 -
Why is it a stupid idea?Stark_Dawning said:I see the government is reviewing its plan to release information about the geographical scope of the contagion once a week only. Good. What a stupid idea that was.
0 -
Yebbut (and this is a real yebbut point, but I don't see why it is not valid) he is getting his %age improvement by raising the denominator, not reducing the numerator. Per whole population, deaths remains the same but number of cases (= potential spreaders, symptomatic or not) rises. So in absolute and overall terms this is not particularly good news.GideonWise said:
The Iceberg model. Unlike for the Titanic, the iceberg in this instance is a good thing.Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.0 -
It reduces the upper limit of deaths down the line.IshmaelZ said:
Yebbut (and this is a real yebbut point, but I don't see why it is not valid) he is getting his %age improvement by raising the denominator, not reducing the numerator. Per whole population, deaths remains the same but number of cases (= potential spreaders, symptomatic or not) rises. So in absolute and overall terms this is not particularly good news.GideonWise said:
The Iceberg model. Unlike for the Titanic, the iceberg in this instance is a good thing.Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.0 -
I do not rate RLB but her interview just now on Sky confirms she is totally unsuited for 2020 politics and winning back the red wall
If she becomes leader, labour will be over0 -
Fair point. The comparison had occurred to me, too.Pulpstar said:
"Astoundingly irresponsible"Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1235409660104015873
The difference is that Trump has been saying many things which are astoundingly irresponsible ...
https://twitter.com/Politidope/status/12354155829310668800 -
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.1 -
Because if, say, Sussex had a shed load of cases, I'd probably decide not to go there if I could help it. If I went there, caught it, but was only told about the shed load of cases a week later I'd be properly peeved.Andy_JS said:
Why is it a stupid idea?Stark_Dawning said:I see the government is reviewing its plan to release information about the geographical scope of the contagion once a week only. Good. What a stupid idea that was.
0 -
You're skipping a few things there. Like cross-immunity, and natural selection.eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.0 -
0
-
This is a bit presumptuous, for example in Maine and Massachusetts Sanders and Warren combined have won more pledged delegates now than Biden and Bloomberg combined despite the fact Biden won the popular vote there.
If Biden has not won a majority of delegates outright by the convention, a Sanders-Warren ticket is possible0 -
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.0 -
Biden's in the price and there isn't much more the central bankers can do or say in the short term. So it is hard to see it going higher from here.kinabalu said:
For me it's the Dow that is most vulnerable to a significant negative correction over the next few weeks. So I am considering shorting it. Tell you if I do and at what level.IanB2 said:Markets are starting to consider having another bad day.
The biggest risk to a shorting strategy is the arrival (or the sniff of a rumour) of the medical cavalry.1 -
It theoretically increases it and practically does not alter it. If you are saying 1% of 340 people will die, that's 340 potential victims; if 3.4% of 100 will die, you can't have more than 100 deaths. It never reduces it.Pulpstar said:
It reduces the upper limit of deaths down the line.IshmaelZ said:
Yebbut (and this is a real yebbut point, but I don't see why it is not valid) he is getting his %age improvement by raising the denominator, not reducing the numerator. Per whole population, deaths remains the same but number of cases (= potential spreaders, symptomatic or not) rises. So in absolute and overall terms this is not particularly good news.GideonWise said:
The Iceberg model. Unlike for the Titanic, the iceberg in this instance is a good thing.Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.0 -
Direct message them on twitter, you can't call them any more.Casino_Royale said:
Inexplicably, shes's available in the 27-34 range this morning.Sandpit said:On topic, I’ve been pointing out for weeks that the Betfair Dem Nom market has been very under-round, it got to 87% at one point, based on the back prices of layable candidates.
Biden now being 1.19 has finally made the market exceed 100%.
Still six layable candidates though, there’s 40 to lay Hillary Clinton if 2.5% return in 4 months is better than your bank account pays.
I can't actually lay her anymore as I've reached my Betfair Exchange exposure limit!0 -
No doubt, although Ms Sturgeon may have other things on her mind.Charles said:
A key indicator for me is that all the ministers who go on tv (inc Sturgeon) look absolutely shattered. They are working v hard behind the scenes.Foxy said:
ROK and China show that the way to control this is to stamp on it hard with lockdowns, quarantine and mass testing.Gardenwalker said:Bad news for panic merchants, South Korea’s new reported cases just 145 today.
Was 400/500 a day, earlier this week.
If we are efficient at this then we may well miss the lesson. With "only" hundreds of deaths, people will say "what was that fuss about?"
If we are inefficient we well get the lesson delivered fairly brutally that "this is not just flu".0 -
So which counties are on your daily “avoid” list?Stark_Dawning said:
Because if, say, Sussex had a shed load of cases, I'd probably decide not to go there if I could help it. If I went there, caught it, but was only told about the shed load of cases a week later I'd be properly peeved.Andy_JS said:
Why is it a stupid idea?Stark_Dawning said:I see the government is reviewing its plan to release information about the geographical scope of the contagion once a week only. Good. What a stupid idea that was.
At least, unlike the US we are publishing the number of tests conducted.0 -
Everyone who has had it as a mild or asymptomatic case is immune, and can therefore be deducted from the populations both of the uninfected and the possible deaths. Any percentage you are using to deduce the number of potential deaths is thereafter being multiplied against a reduced base.IshmaelZ said:
It theoretically increases it and practically does not alter it. If you are saying 1% of 340 people will die, that's 340 potential victims; if 3.4% of 100 will die, you can't have more than 100 deaths. It never reduces it.Pulpstar said:
It reduces the upper limit of deaths down the line.IshmaelZ said:
Yebbut (and this is a real yebbut point, but I don't see why it is not valid) he is getting his %age improvement by raising the denominator, not reducing the numerator. Per whole population, deaths remains the same but number of cases (= potential spreaders, symptomatic or not) rises. So in absolute and overall terms this is not particularly good news.GideonWise said:
The Iceberg model. Unlike for the Titanic, the iceberg in this instance is a good thing.Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.0 -
Although the "kill the host" is the most vivid natural selection effect, I suspect the greater one is that a mild illness encourages people to keep active and therefore spread it. It's why we've all had colds more often than flu.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.0 -
Sanders has won most delegates in California, for him that is all that mattersDavidL said:
But they are not going to split them equally. Health scares/total incoherence permitting Biden is going to win far more, possibly 2/3. As we saw last time out Sanders has his adherents who will hang in there with him but there are fewer than there were in 2016 and he has the Warren problem too.Alistair said:
If Biden and Sanders split the remaining delegates in then neither has enough to win on the first round I think.DavidL said:Surely as the choice becomes binary (Warren notwithstanding) the prospects of a brokered convention are wiped out?
And is that a first?
Like poor Buttigieg in Iowa the utter chaos in California risks taking the momentum out of Bernie's biggest win and preventing him from having a popular vote lead until it is too late. Yet another State whose voting is not fit for purpose.0 -
Nobody knows whether that is true about immunity.IanB2 said:
Everyone who has had it as a mild or asymptomatic case is immune, and can therefore be deducted from the populations both of the uninfected and the possible deaths. Any percentage you are using to deduce the number of potential deaths is thereafter being multiplied against a reduced base.IshmaelZ said:
It theoretically increases it and practically does not alter it. If you are saying 1% of 340 people will die, that's 340 potential victims; if 3.4% of 100 will die, you can't have more than 100 deaths. It never reduces it.Pulpstar said:
It reduces the upper limit of deaths down the line.IshmaelZ said:
Yebbut (and this is a real yebbut point, but I don't see why it is not valid) he is getting his %age improvement by raising the denominator, not reducing the numerator. Per whole population, deaths remains the same but number of cases (= potential spreaders, symptomatic or not) rises. So in absolute and overall terms this is not particularly good news.GideonWise said:
The Iceberg model. Unlike for the Titanic, the iceberg in this instance is a good thing.Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.0 -
Less immediately lethal. The “ideal” (from a virus POV) virus is one that is asymptomatic for a long time while still being infectious - like HIV.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.
1 -
Not for sure, and it depends on the mutation. But we know enough about corona viruses to believe that it is highly likely.IshmaelZ said:
Nobody knows whether that is true about immunity.IanB2 said:
Everyone who has had it as a mild or asymptomatic case is immune, and can therefore be deducted from the populations both of the uninfected and the possible deaths. Any percentage you are using to deduce the number of potential deaths is thereafter being multiplied against a reduced base.IshmaelZ said:
It theoretically increases it and practically does not alter it. If you are saying 1% of 340 people will die, that's 340 potential victims; if 3.4% of 100 will die, you can't have more than 100 deaths. It never reduces it.Pulpstar said:
It reduces the upper limit of deaths down the line.IshmaelZ said:
Yebbut (and this is a real yebbut point, but I don't see why it is not valid) he is getting his %age improvement by raising the denominator, not reducing the numerator. Per whole population, deaths remains the same but number of cases (= potential spreaders, symptomatic or not) rises. So in absolute and overall terms this is not particularly good news.GideonWise said:
The Iceberg model. Unlike for the Titanic, the iceberg in this instance is a good thing.Nigelb said:Some reassurance from the CMO:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/05/chief-medical-officer-chris-whitty-questioned-by-mps-live-news
Whitty says the WTO figure does not take account of people who only got the disease very midly.
He says he has a “reasonably high degree of confidence” that the real mortality rate is 1%, or lower.1 -
Smallpox. 30% CFR, in business since 10,000 BC.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.
Edit to add: despite competition from less lethal mutations like cowpox.0 -
Whilst that's true there's nothing to stop you repeating the exercise by then, if you're in a position to do so.noneoftheabove said:
Everyone has to make their own choices but Id prefer to carry on as normally as possible whilst following govt guidelines. Two big reasons are there is zero guarantee that 2-3 months will stop you getting coronavirus, it may even be more prevalent in the autumn/next winter, and that getting it early may be better than getting it late.Casino_Royale said:
Well, better than solitary confinement or a short prison sentence.noneoftheabove said:
What are the implications for your mental and physical health of doing so even if you have the choice? Probably worse 99% of the time.Casino_Royale said:
At the end of the day, if you hole yourself up (alone) at home for 2-3 months with supplies and never venture out (and receive no visitors) you absolutely won't get it.Gardenwalker said:I stopped taking the tube last week.
I note it is now hard to buy bulk dry goods from Ocado.
My nanny is insisting on a hand sanitiser regime for visitors.
I have mentally cancelled the ski trip.
Such are the privations recorded in my journal of the plague year.
Not everyone has that option, of course.
You have TV, phone, internet, you can work too, and go out in the garden whenever you want.
If I was single and didn't need to travel for work I'd do it. I've had asthma and pneumonia before and have no desire to repeat the experience.
And, hopefully by then, a vaccine won't be too far away.0 -
Your post is both comforting and unnerving at the same time to a 76 year old with hypertension and diabetes.Foxy said:
As a fifty something male with hypertension, I stand around a 2% chance of dying of COVID19 if I get it. That is a lot higher than background risk.Andy_JS said:
But that's no different to the people who are most likely to die from coronavirus. Elderly people with pre-existing conditions.northernpowerhouse2 said:
Because it was largely people who were weakened or/and elderly. Flu hastened a death. But that death was coming soon and probably by whatever infected them.noneoftheabove said:
In 1989 apparently 26,000 people died of flu in the UK. I cant it even recall it being in the news that year? I can clearly recall Hillsborough, Gorbachev, high inflation, Guildford four, Marchioness so think I was paying attention.IanB2 said:
No idea. But the winter before last, flu deaths in the UK were running at five every day. I must have been on holiday because I don’t remember the wall to wall media coverage.alex_ said:A question on COVID-19 vs “normal” flu (which most people self misdiagnose).
How much of the difference is likely related to one factor (vaccination of high percentage of at risk groups)? And how much is down to COVID-19 being (presumably) more dangerous for other reasons? Eg. Higher propensity to spread, higher (normalised ie. imagining their was no vaccine for flu) mortality?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/which-groups-are-most-at-risk-from-the-coronavirus/
I dislike too the implication that seventy and eighty somethings with either diabetes or cardiovascular disease are on their last legs anyway. These are our parents and grandparents, our friends and family. They are contributing in a major way to our society and cultural life. I value them and want them to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.1 -
None at the moment. But if there was a geographical cluster then surely we'd want people to know about it, so they could make an informed judgement about whether to avoid the area. Or are you happy for this information to be held back for a week?CarlottaVance said:
So which counties are on your daily “avoid” list?Stark_Dawning said:
Because if, say, Sussex had a shed load of cases, I'd probably decide not to go there if I could help it. If I went there, caught it, but was only told about the shed load of cases a week later I'd be properly peeved.Andy_JS said:
Why is it a stupid idea?Stark_Dawning said:I see the government is reviewing its plan to release information about the geographical scope of the contagion once a week only. Good. What a stupid idea that was.
At least, unlike the US we are publishing the number of tests conducted.0 -
Also works with EU flag. Brand new preferred
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1235166654046384130?s=211 -
for those who will have to google it. CFR means (after googling it myself) case fatality rate)IshmaelZ said:
Smallpox. 30% CFR, in business since 10,000 BC.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.0 -
does anyone know where COVID 19 started (I mean the source not the location)0
-
Looks a bit BNP though.CarlottaVance said:Also works with EU flag. Brand new preferred
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1235166654046384130?s=210 -
Wasn't it supposed to be from bats ?squareroot2 said:does anyone know where COVID 19 started (I mean the source not the location)
0 -
If there’s a cluster those patients will have been identified and isolated- it’s the unidentified clusters which present problems- if they think their time is better spent doing something else I’d go with them.Stark_Dawning said:
None at the moment. But if there was a geographical cluster then surely we'd want people to know about it, so they could make an informed judgement about whether to avoid the area. Or are you happy for this information to be held back for a week?CarlottaVance said:
So which counties are on your daily “avoid” list?Stark_Dawning said:
Because if, say, Sussex had a shed load of cases, I'd probably decide not to go there if I could help it. If I went there, caught it, but was only told about the shed load of cases a week later I'd be properly peeved.Andy_JS said:
Why is it a stupid idea?Stark_Dawning said:I see the government is reviewing its plan to release information about the geographical scope of the contagion once a week only. Good. What a stupid idea that was.
At least, unlike the US we are publishing the number of tests conducted.
0 -
And flying the flag upside down is a distress signal...Casino_Royale said:
Looks a bit BNP though.CarlottaVance said:Also works with EU flag. Brand new preferred
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1235166654046384130?s=211 -
Albeit if the virus had an eventual 100% CFR there would soon be no hosts to infect.CarlottaVance said:
Less immediately lethal. The “ideal” (from a virus POV) virus is one that is asymptomatic for a long time while still being infectious - like HIV.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.0 -
Latest I read was Bats>Pangolins> HumansWhisperingOracle said:
Wasn't it supposed to be from bats ?squareroot2 said:does anyone know where COVID 19 started (I mean the source not the location)
0 -
California timeline :.
Counties will wait until Friday to receive all the mail-in ballots.
“We won’t even know how many more outstanding ballots there will be to process until ... Friday (March 6),”
Before counties submit the final results, they must perform a post-election audit. One percent of precincts are chosen randomly and then counted by hand to ensure the accuracy of the voting machine’s count.
A slow stream of results will flow in during the days and weeks after the election, as counties have until April 3 to report their final results to Padilla’s office.
Padilla will then certify the final results by April 10.0 -
Not if the incubation rate was sufficiently long for the host to reproduce and provide new hosts.Benpointer said:
Albeit if the virus had an eventual 100% CFR there would soon be no hosts to infect.CarlottaVance said:
Less immediately lethal. The “ideal” (from a virus POV) virus is one that is asymptomatic for a long time while still being infectious - like HIV.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.1 -
Yes that is also an effect. A different effect. However, from the viewpoint of a virus species, killing off 1 percent of hosts while easily jumping from host to host, is a great trade off. Ebola is different. Ebola kills off too many hosts before they can pass it on, and humans can contain it with some effort. So an Ebloa variant which has a lower death rate would be more sucessful.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.
If I were the virus president of the Corona Republic I would be urging my subjects to avoid forcing those humans into lock-down mode, Both by flying under the radar (only mild symptoms) and by rapid colonisation. So far things seem to be progressing quite nicely!
0 -
The reality is this situation is ridiculously complex. No-one knows the best actions, including the govt but they have the most resources and most up to date info and projections.CarlottaVance said:
If there’s a cluster those patients will have been identified and isolated- it’s the unidentified clusters which present problems- if they think their time is better spent doing something else I’d go with them.Stark_Dawning said:
None at the moment. But if there was a geographical cluster then surely we'd want people to know about it, so they could make an informed judgement about whether to avoid the area. Or are you happy for this information to be held back for a week?CarlottaVance said:
So which counties are on your daily “avoid” list?Stark_Dawning said:
Because if, say, Sussex had a shed load of cases, I'd probably decide not to go there if I could help it. If I went there, caught it, but was only told about the shed load of cases a week later I'd be properly peeved.Andy_JS said:
Why is it a stupid idea?Stark_Dawning said:I see the government is reviewing its plan to release information about the geographical scope of the contagion once a week only. Good. What a stupid idea that was.
At least, unlike the US we are publishing the number of tests conducted.
Given that, as long as the govt is making reasonable suggestions, it is fairly pointless individuals trying to second guess that advice, even if it is natural and tempting to do so.2 -
And Delta/Virgin want the Heathrow slots...
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1235509074185326598?s=200 -
Believed to come from an animal source in a food market in Hubei province. Originally most likely a bat source, but might have been transmitted to the first human carrier via a pangolin apparently.squareroot2 said:does anyone know where COVID 19 started (I mean the source not the location)
0 -
Elvis.WhisperingOracle said:
Wasn't it supposed to be from bats ?squareroot2 said:does anyone know where COVID 19 started (I mean the source not the location)
0 -
You'd also be funding a lot of twitterbot farms to put the "nothing to worry about" case as widely as possible.eristdoof said:
Yes that is also an effect. A different effect. However, from the viewpoint of a virus species, killing off 1 percent of hosts while easily jumping from host to host, is a great trade off. Ebola is different. Ebola kills off too many hosts before they can pass it on, and humans can contain it with some effort. So an Ebloa variant which has a lower death rate would be more sucessful.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.
If I were the virus president of the Corona Republic I would be urging my subjects to avoid forcing those humans into lock-down mode, Both by flying under the radar (only mild symptoms) and by rapid colonisation. So far things seem to be progressing quite nicely!0 -
Giving this some thought (reluctantly) I would postulate that if a virus has serious ambitions to wipe out most or all of humanity it needs the following key attributes -CarlottaVance said:Less immediately lethal. The “ideal” (from a virus POV) virus is one that is asymptomatic for a long time while still being infectious - like HIV.
Very contagious AND infectious.
No symptoms for 28 days.
On the 29th day you drop dead.
Once that comes along we will need to develop a vaccine very urgently indeed.0 -
Make Corona Great Again0
-
Quite true - viruses don’t “want” to kill hosts - it’s often the hosts immune system which does for the host - one of the theories behind why the “Spanish (sic - it almost certainly originated in the US) flu” killed so many young people with robust immune systems.Benpointer said:
Albeit if the virus had an eventual 100% CFR there would soon be no hosts to infect.CarlottaVance said:
Less immediately lethal. The “ideal” (from a virus POV) virus is one that is asymptomatic for a long time while still being infectious - like HIV.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Perhaps natural selection also plays a part? Viruses that kill their hosts won't survive so well, and so will tend to be replaced by those that don't. So there will be a natural tendency for viruses to become less lethal over time as the less lethal variants displace the more deadly ones. No idea if this is a significant influence though. Presumably variants that make people cough and sneeze more are also at an advantage when it comes to spreading themselves!eristdoof said:
This is called regression to the mean.Pulpstar said:I heard COVID19 was an RNA virus and liable to mutate quickly. Given viruses have a proclivity to mutate towards less harmful forms could this not just peter out by itself ?
If you see someone who is 6 ft 2 inches it is very likely that the next person you see is shorter. That is just because you have seen a tall person, and by definition most people are not tall. It is however possible that the next person is 6ft4in. If you travel on a train today, you are almost certainly going to see someone who is 6ft4 or taller.
All organisms mutate. As a virus reproduces quickly, new mutations are arriving and surviving all the time. At least one of the current strains of the new corona virus is bad, lets say equivalent to a 6'4" person. The next mutation is likely to only be a 5'9" on the virus-badness scale. But it could be a 6'5" virus. In the next few months it is likely that one of the mutations is both 6'5" and survives to cause an outbreak.0 -
-
-
Bollox, nobody has any accurate death rate at this time, more of your snowflake wittering. It is all just headless chicken speculating at present.Mysticrose said:
The death rate for this is around 3.4% compared to flu's 0.1%.IanB2 said:
My guess is that as soon as Brits are dying daily, it will be plastered all over the pages even at levels still in the same ballpark as normal flu.SouthamObserver said:
Presumably we’ll get the flu deaths as usual, the COVID-19 ones are extra. That’s the problem (I assume): this is on top of all the regular stuff, it’s fast-moving and we just don’t know enough about it.IanB2 said:
No idea. But the winter before last, flu deaths in the UK were running at five every day. I must have been on holiday because I don’t remember the wall to wall media coverage.alex_ said:A question on COVID-19 vs “normal” flu (which most people self misdiagnose).
How much of the difference is likely related to one factor (vaccination of high percentage of at risk groups)? And how much is down to COVID-19 being (presumably) more dangerous for other reasons? Eg. Higher propensity to spread, higher (normalised ie. imagining their was no vaccine for flu) mortality?
So 35x more deadly if you catch it.2 -
Among those over 80.HYUFD said:2 -
Fine. But is the bullying tone really necessary?HYUFD said:0 -
Every virus has passed its fizzicle!Pulpstar said:Make Corona Great Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nue8j_52M6Q0 -
If only there were more vegetarians in China!Phil said:
Believed to come from an animal source in a food market in Hubei province. Originally most likely a bat source, but might have been transmitted to the first human carrier via a pangolin apparently.squareroot2 said:does anyone know where COVID 19 started (I mean the source not the location)
0 -
For years??? But that can't be. Our Panicker-in-Chief has assured us that their demise is on account of the Coronavirus.CarlottaVance said:And Delta/Virgin want the Heathrow slots...
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1235509074185326598?s=202 -
I've criticised Johnson a lot and will continue to do so but that piece opens weirdly critical that Johnson would seek to follow medical experts on such an issue simply because on a much broader issue of Brexit he would not.CarlottaVance said:Johnson, then—and U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel—will be judged in hindsight for decisions taken without that privilege. Did he overreact or underreact? the public will ask. Did he calm a volatile situation or induce panic? Did he show leadership or reveal a lack of it? Is he up to the job? Faced with trying to ensure public confidence in his leadership, Johnson’s first reaction was to turn to experts. Those experts immediately threw the ball back to him.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-covid19-politics-crisis-boris-johnson-britain/607456/1
