I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Can you explain why soap and water is better, like you've explained the role of alcohol?
Soap and water are pretty effective antiseptic when done for 30 seconds and every hand crevice covered, with the advantage of ready availability.
Alcohol rubs are also good, but do irritate skin and poor use can leave missed areas on hands. Good for fomites too, like mobile phones!
In the next few weeks a lot of people are going to be working full-time from home and finding out that it is entirely doable. That's going to transform people's ideas of what an office is for. Instead of being a home for working, it's going to be a convention centre.
Some of the large scale infrastructure projects being mooted are going to look very old-fashioned.
Gigabit broadband to every home for half the price of HS2...
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Or better, train yourself to use only the back of your hand to face-touch.
Was thinking about this while in the gym this morning. The management has put out a couple of bottles of high-alcohol disinfectant, but we're all holding the weights, the handles and so on.
I always wear gloves in the gym. Always have done, I`m convinced I lift more as a result.
The debate on the coronavirus seems to have become polarised to the point that unless hardly anyone else dies from it, one side will claim that the "deniers" have been proved wrong, and unless it wipes out at least half the world, the other side will claim that the "fearmongerers" have been proved wrong.
The reality is of course that it will almost certainly be somewhere in the middle of those two scenarios. Both sides will then spend the next several months claiming that the other predicted something much more extreme than they actually did.
Still, it makes a change from Brexit. Albeit that didn't actually directly kill anyone.
Given the scale of the predictions made, I am not so sure. Weve seen repeated warnings, backed by cod calculations, that millions of Brits will die. A bad winter flu sees 20-30,000 at most die with flu (many of whom on their way out already). There is a stark difference between these scenarios - an order of magnitude greater than normal flu might get you to 100-150,000, whereas scaling back the SeanT apocalypse might give you an estimate of half a million. The no man's land zone is around 250,000: very much worse than normal flu but nowhere near the end of civilisation as we know it.
Interestingly (or not), 250k is my current best estimate. Based on 25-50% getting infected, and 1% mortality rate. Based on mostly gut instinct. I don't think more sophisticated models are much use in this case unless you have a whole lot of data not usually available to the general public.
I would be saying that if say 25% are infected, 90%+ of those infected will be too mild to be counted in the stats, and that therefore your 250k estimate should also be reduced by 90-95%+, but that is all speculating.
We need numbers from other countries further down the track.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
I can't see how this helps for face touching that's unconscious.
With self-training your unconscious movement become automatic after a while.
It can be done quite quickly when necessary. I'd always considered sneezing to often be unconscious which it often is until I was the victim of an unprovoked assault. I woke up in hospital blind in one eye but was told I'd gain the vision back tomorrow but was also told by the nurse - repeatedly - before I was discharged that I must not under any circumstances sneeze.
I was told my eye socket had been shattered, that it should heal after a fortnight but if I was to sneeze within a fortnight it would mean me going permanently blind in that eye.
Being told you'll go blind if you sneeze suddenly makes sneezing a very conscious action.
Wow sorry to hear that. Glad you managed to follow instructions. I think with stakes that high it seems a lot can be done.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Or better, train yourself to use only the back of your hand to face-touch.
Was thinking about this while in the gym this morning. The management has put out a couple of bottles of high-alcohol disinfectant, but we're all holding the weights, the handles and so on.
I always wear gloves in the gym. Always have done, I`m convinced I lift more as a result.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
I can't see how this helps for face touching that's unconscious.
With self-training your unconscious movement become automatic after a while.
It can be done quite quickly when necessary. I'd always considered sneezing to often be unconscious which it often is until I was the victim of an unprovoked assault. I woke up in hospital blind in one eye but was told I'd gain the vision back tomorrow but was also told by the nurse - repeatedly - before I was discharged that I must not under any circumstances sneeze.
I was told my eye socket had been shattered, that it should heal after a fortnight but if I was to sneeze within a fortnight it would mean me going permanently blind in that eye.
Being told you'll go blind if you sneeze suddenly makes sneezing a very conscious action.
Blimey. Not sure I could go a fortnight without sneezing. How did you manage ?
Indeed.
I avoided peppery foodstuffs, getting too drunk (so I wouldn't lose self-control) and every time I felt the need to sneeze (which was surprisingly often) I willed it away. Between feeling you need to sneeze and being terrified of going blind in one eye if you do even once, the latter was able to win out every time.
Was also the longest fortnight of my life though. Two weeks is a very long time when you're afraid of what can happen like that.
Mr. Mark, it must be said, when I thought the Vietnamese Grand Prix might not go ahead due to coronavirus that was entirely due to a belief there might be too much of the disease in that country, not due to potential quarantine restrictions affecting Ferrari.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
I can't see how this helps for face touching that's unconscious.
With self-training your unconscious movement become automatic after a while.
It can be done quite quickly when necessary. I'd always considered sneezing to often be unconscious which it often is until I was the victim of an unprovoked assault. I woke up in hospital blind in one eye but was told I'd gain the vision back tomorrow but was also told by the nurse - repeatedly - before I was discharged that I must not under any circumstances sneeze.
I was told my eye socket had been shattered, that it should heal after a fortnight but if I was to sneeze within a fortnight it would mean me going permanently blind in that eye.
Being told you'll go blind if you sneeze suddenly makes sneezing a very conscious action.
Blimey. Not sure I could go a fortnight without sneezing. How did you manage ?
Indeed.
I avoided peppery foodstuffs, getting too drunk (so I wouldn't lose self-control) and every time I felt the need to sneeze (which was surprisingly often) I willed it away. Between feeling you need to sneeze and being terrified of going blind in one eye if you do even once, the latter was able to win out every time.
I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Fuck me, PB.com is like having our very own NHS Helpline.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Or better, train yourself to use only the back of your hand to face-touch.
Was thinking about this while in the gym this morning. The management has put out a couple of bottles of high-alcohol disinfectant, but we're all holding the weights, the handles and so on.
I always wear gloves in the gym. Always have done, I`m convinced I lift more as a result.
Student Unions have always being weird places politically, I once recall a three hour meeting with over 100 participants arguing over whether or not the Union snack shop should sell KitKat bars.
I'm still reflexively boycotting Nestle 25 years later. I can't remember what Nestle were doing to make me boycott them and I have no idea if they're still doing it but I just see a Nestle thing and I'm like nope, not that one, I'll get the other one
From memory it was advertising baby formula to people who could breastfeed?
Mr. Mark, it must be said, when I thought the Vietnamese Grand Prix might not go ahead due to coronavirus that was entirely due to a belief there might be too much of the disease in that country, not due to potential quarantine restrictions affecting Ferrari.
I'm told that Vietnam is, at time of writing, OK, but I understand there's a question over Bahrain, due, as suggested, to questions over Ferrari.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
I can't see how this helps for face touching that's unconscious.
With self-training your unconscious movement become automatic after a while.
It can be done quite quickly when necessary. I'd always considered sneezing to often be unconscious which it often is until I was the victim of an unprovoked assault. I woke up in hospital blind in one eye but was told I'd gain the vision back tomorrow but was also told by the nurse - repeatedly - before I was discharged that I must not under any circumstances sneeze.
I was told my eye socket had been shattered, that it should heal after a fortnight but if I was to sneeze within a fortnight it would mean me going permanently blind in that eye.
Being told you'll go blind if you sneeze suddenly makes sneezing a very conscious action.
Wow sorry to hear that. Glad you managed to follow instructions. I think with stakes that high it seems a lot can be done.
Thanks. It was a completely unprovoked random assault, the guy who did it was high as a kite, got arrested immediately after my friends hailed a nearby Police Officer to arrest him. Looking back I'm most annoyed with the sentence, he got convicted for GBH but only got a six month sentence for it.
I kept my sight and only have a few scars to show for it; the eye socket hurts in cold weather other than that I fully recovered.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Or better, train yourself to use only the back of your hand to face-touch.
Was thinking about this while in the gym this morning. The management has put out a couple of bottles of high-alcohol disinfectant, but we're all holding the weights, the handles and so on.
I always wear gloves in the gym. Always have done, I`m convinced I lift more as a result.
Fabric or plastic? I'm thinking about surgical ones.
Mr. Mark, it must be said, when I thought the Vietnamese Grand Prix might not go ahead due to coronavirus that was entirely due to a belief there might be too much of the disease in that country, not due to potential quarantine restrictions affecting Ferrari.
The alternative view is that Vietnam are ignoring Coronavirus cases, precisely because they don’t want their big event to be cancelled.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Or better, train yourself to use only the back of your hand to face-touch.
Was thinking about this while in the gym this morning. The management has put out a couple of bottles of high-alcohol disinfectant, but we're all holding the weights, the handles and so on.
I always wear gloves in the gym. Always have done, I`m convinced I lift more as a result.
Fabric or plastic? I'm thinking about surgical ones.
Fabric with leather patches. I`d look a right tool in the gym with surgical gloves on.
Student Unions have always being weird places politically, I once recall a three hour meeting with over 100 participants arguing over whether or not the Union snack shop should sell KitKat bars.
I'm still reflexively boycotting Nestle 25 years later. I can't remember what Nestle were doing to make me boycott them and I have no idea if they're still doing it but I just see a Nestle thing and I'm like nope, not that one, I'll get the other one
From memory it was advertising baby formula to people who could breastfeed?
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
I can't see how this helps for face touching that's unconscious.
With self-training your unconscious movement become automatic after a while.
It can be done quite quickly when necessary. I'd always considered sneezing to often be unconscious which it often is until I was the victim of an unprovoked assault. I woke up in hospital blind in one eye but was told I'd gain the vision back tomorrow but was also told by the nurse - repeatedly - before I was discharged that I must not under any circumstances sneeze.
I was told my eye socket had been shattered, that it should heal after a fortnight but if I was to sneeze within a fortnight it would mean me going permanently blind in that eye.
Being told you'll go blind if you sneeze suddenly makes sneezing a very conscious action.
Wow sorry to hear that. Glad you managed to follow instructions. I think with stakes that high it seems a lot can be done.
Thanks. It was a completely unprovoked random assault, the guy who did it was high as a kite, got arrested immediately after my friends hailed a nearby Police Officer to arrest him. Looking back I'm most annoyed with the sentence, he got convicted for GBH but only got a six month sentence for it.
I kept my sight and only have a few scars to show for it; the eye socket hurts in cold weather other than that I fully recovered.
(I had difficulties posting, so this is a new account.) Good news.
Last night's figure at Worldometers for the number of cases outside of China by the end of 5 March was 17862. My models G and L predicted 18074 or 18513.
I have now tweaked both G and L to take account of the last few days' figures while disregarding the first few days' which were under 1000. This gives 16 data points. An asterisk denotes the most up-to-date version of each model.
L is the better choice of curve "theoretically", and L* also gives a slightly better fit than G* (R^2 = 0.9986 as against 0.9982). While G may have outscored L in predicting the most recent figure, these are two reasons to believe L* may be a better predictor than G*.
One of L's parameters is the maximum value or "carrying capacity". The good news is that this has now decreased from a number of the order of 10^10 (larger than the world's population) all the way down to 85983.
L* predicts as follows:
6 Mar 21320 7 Mar 25089 8 Mar 29223 9 Mar 33662 10 Mar 38320 11 Mar 43092 12 Mar 47861 <- daily increase starts to decrease 13 Mar 52512 14 Mar 56940 15 Mar 61060 16 Mar 64813 17 Mar 68165 18 Mar 71109 19 Mar 73654 20 Mar 75826 21 Mar 77659 22 Mar 79190 23 Mar 80460 24 Mar 81506 25 Mar 82363 26 Mar 83061 27 Mar 83629 28 Mar 84089 29 Mar 84461 30 Mar 84761 31 Mar 85002
... and fewer than 1000 new cases thereafter, which we can define as the virus being under control.
G* predicts:
6 Mar 21725 7 Mar 26074 8 Mar 31203 9 Mar 37235 10 Mar 44305 ... 31 Mar 878230 ... 2 Apr >1 million ... 9 May 7796123
Takeaway:
* 3300-3400 new cases today => virus under control before March is out
* 3600-3700 new cases => keep thinking "Apocalypse".
Since a daily figure is highly sensitive to what may happen in only one country, e.g. a change in testing or reporting policy in South Korea or wherever, it might be better to hold off until the end of next Tuesday, 10 March.
This figure will be published in the early hours of the 11th:
* total of 38000 => under control by end of March, with <90K infections
* total of 44000 => expect many millions more to be infected.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Or better, train yourself to use only the back of your hand to face-touch.
Was thinking about this while in the gym this morning. The management has put out a couple of bottles of high-alcohol disinfectant, but we're all holding the weights, the handles and so on.
I always wear gloves in the gym. Always have done, I`m convinced I lift more as a result.
Fabric or plastic? I'm thinking about surgical ones.
Fabric with leather patches. I`d look a right tool in the gym with surgical gloves on.
16oz for sparring is the norm. Lighter if you want for the bags.
34x suggests a level of knowledge which simply isn’t there. All you can say for sure is that it’s likely an order of magnitude more deadly.
As for infection rates, it would seem (though again there is considerable uncertainty) to be extremely contagious, but not particularly transmissible via any airborne route. Assuming that proves true, R0 is likely to be significantly ameliorable by various public health measures.
What that means for the total of infected or dead over the next twelve months is for now sheer guesswork. Even if some of those guesses are more educated than others.
Ah, OK, I was wondering about the "infectious vs contagious" angle. It's mainly the latter then. About touching things.
My plan therefore - do not go out much and when I do, do not touch anything that I do not have to, and do not on any account touch my own face. Then, on return, wash my hands very thoroughly with soap and hot water. Ditto my partner.
This ought to work by the sounds of it.
Course, we can only do this because we don't HAVE to go out much.
Easier said than done. That's exactly what we've been trying to do for the last week, but it is astonishingly difficult not to touch your face. Especially when sitting in a traffic jam on the way back from the supermarket, hands potentially covered in bugs from the trolley handle, and your nose starts to itch. And don't forget mobile phones! These are getting wiped down with isopropanol on entry to our house.
Carry tissues for that itchy nose.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
Gloves :-)
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Or better, train yourself to use only the back of your hand to face-touch.
Was thinking about this while in the gym this morning. The management has put out a couple of bottles of high-alcohol disinfectant, but we're all holding the weights, the handles and so on.
I always wear gloves in the gym. Always have done, I`m convinced I lift more as a result.
Fabric or plastic? I'm thinking about surgical ones.
Fabric with leather patches. I`d look a right tool in the gym with surgical gloves on.
Know what you mean, but some of the equipment I work out on has quite sweaty hand grips. One of the treadmills especially so.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Gives a surprisingly wholesome new meaning to the Weeknd's song "Can't Feel My Face".
"And I know she'll be the death of me, at least we'll both be numb..."
Always best to seek out the wholesome interpretation.
Speaking of which -
"And sometimes when we touch The honesty's too much And I have to close my eyes And hide I want to hold you till I die Till we both break down and cry I want to hold you till the fear in me subsides"
Is there a more intense and yet refreshingly non-raunchy evocation of physical love in the annals of popular music than this? Not for me.
The debate on the coronavirus seems to have become polarised to the point that unless hardly anyone else dies from it, one side will claim that the "deniers" have been proved wrong, and unless it wipes out at least half the world, the other side will claim that the "fearmongerers" have been proved wrong.
The reality is of course that it will almost certainly be somewhere in the middle of those two scenarios. Both sides will then spend the next several months claiming that the other predicted something much more extreme than they actually did.
Still, it makes a change from Brexit. Albeit that didn't actually directly kill anyone.
Given the scale of the predictions made, I am not so sure. Weve seen repeated warnings, backed by cod calculations, that millions of Brits will die. A bad winter flu sees 20-30,000 at most die with flu (many of whom on their way out already). There is a stark difference between these scenarios - an order of magnitude greater than normal flu might get you to 100-150,000, whereas scaling back the SeanT apocalypse might give you an estimate of half a million. The no man's land zone is around 250,000: very much worse than normal flu but nowhere near the end of civilisation as we know it.
Interestingly (or not), 250k is my current best estimate. Based on 25-50% getting infected, and 1% mortality rate. Based on mostly gut instinct. I don't think more sophisticated models are much use in this case unless you have a whole lot of data not usually available to the general public.
I would be saying that if say 25% are infected, 90%+ of those infected will be too mild to be counted in the stats, and that therefore your 250k estimate should also be reduced by 90-95%+, but that is all speculating.
We need numbers from other countries further down the track.
The overall reported infection rate in China is 0.005% (yes, 1/200th of 1% - c80k out of 1.4bn) and the numbers are hardly going up at all.
What gives? Has all comercial activity in China entirely stopped?
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
To be fair, reading the Daily Express for the last 30 years or so would be enough to de-sensitize anyone from impending disasters.
I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Can you explain why soap and water is better, like you've explained the role of alcohol?
Soap and water are pretty effective antiseptic when done for 30 seconds and every hand crevice covered, with the advantage of ready availability.
Alcohol rubs are also good, but do irritate skin and poor use can leave missed areas on hands. Good for fomites too, like mobile phones!
AIUI soap, e.g. sodium stearate, works by having one part of the molecule soluble in water (Na+) and the other part soluble in oil, so I was thinking that perhaps the lipids in the virus envelope would be dissolved in the stearate (or modern equivalent) part.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
That chimes entirely with my own experience, as I said earlier.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Agreed - no one I have spoken to seems overly concerned atm.
That will change rapidly if/when the government starts introducing serious restrictions and/or people they know of succumb to the virus.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
My concern was 1/10 until two days ago when I read Foxy`s PB.com posts. It is now 2/10. That is based on the health effects.
Regarding the panic-driven financial effects: 9/10.
In the next few weeks a lot of people are going to be working full-time from home and finding out that it is entirely doable. That's going to transform people's ideas of what an office is for. Instead of being a home for working, it's going to be a convention centre.
Some of the large scale infrastructure projects being mooted are going to look very old-fashioned.
I'm guessing you had a company phone. A lot of people working from home are going to get stuffed by huge mobile phone bills. At work the company pays for electricity, heat, internet and phone.
1) I've been thinking exactly the same thing as Alastair. As one who works in transport, this is a mixed blessing! But probably very healthy. 2) I think very few people pay for phone calls. The cost is generally line rental; once you have that, number of calls tends to be immaterial. In general.
In the next few weeks a lot of people are going to be working full-time from home and finding out that it is entirely doable. That's going to transform people's ideas of what an office is for. Instead of being a home for working, it's going to be a convention centre.
Some of the large scale infrastructure projects being mooted are going to look very old-fashioned.
I work at home quite a lot now. It's not without its issues. One of which is what I call socialisation - the social aspects of working, talking about non-work issues in the workplace, meeting for a pint after work etc.
I also find without the interruptions of an office, I can work intensely for around 2 hours but then need to take a break to refocus. That may just be me but the notion people can work uninterrupted for long periods and maintain concentration is one I would challenge.
I do enjoy the days when I'm not on the mobile germ warfare laboratory or at the mercy of South Western Railways (clean trains but several other issues).
I work from home and can do long spells with no hassles, breaks are for wimps. I agree about the beer after work , having it alone in your home office is not quite the same.
I have two bets on for next PM: Starmer at £7 @ 26 (BF) and Sunak £33 @ 250/1 (Lads).
Starmer is a good bet but I don't see Sunak as PM material. Yes, he's a Northern MP but he represents Richmond, which is not exactly typical Northern territory. Being and ex-hedge fund manager doesn't help either.
I would be much rather looking at someone who can appeal to the MPs who represents the newly won seats in the North and Midlands. If a credible candidate appears, the support of that bloc would easily see the candidate into the final round.
I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Can you explain why soap and water is better, like you've explained the role of alcohol?
Soap and water are pretty effective antiseptic when done for 30 seconds and every hand crevice covered, with the advantage of ready availability.
Alcohol rubs are also good, but do irritate skin and poor use can leave missed areas on hands. Good for fomites too, like mobile phones!
AIUI soap, e.g. sodium stearate, works by having one part of the molecule soluble in water (Na+) and the other part soluble in oil, so I was thinking that perhaps the lipids in the virus envelope would be dissolved in the stearate (or modern equivalent) part.
I could well be wrong here but I thought that rather than killing the virus, washing well with soap and water removes it from your hands and presumably flushes it down the waste pipe where it soon dies?
I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Can you explain why soap and water is better, like you've explained the role of alcohol?
Soap and water are pretty effective antiseptic when done for 30 seconds and every hand crevice covered, with the advantage of ready availability.
Alcohol rubs are also good, but do irritate skin and poor use can leave missed areas on hands. Good for fomites too, like mobile phones!
What about white spirit? I`ve got loads of that.
It should work as an antiviral, but I think less tested. I am not sure how easy to make it gel, probably needs 10% water as a co-factor and likely to irritate more.
None of this home made handcleaner near an open flame of course!
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
My gf is on maternity leave and I work from gone anyway... all we seem to be taking about is how many people have got the virus and whether we dare get a haircut or go to the gym, while everyone else I know is going to work, getting the tube etc
I’d say PB is a place where people like to argue about the best way to solve potential problems in general, and the more obscure & unlikely the hypothetical scenario, the better. We see it with ‘Could obscure politician no ones heard of (David Leadbitter?) be the next PM?’, ‘Who will be in the cabinet of the Govt of national unity?’ & so on, so while there is something going on, the level of scrutiny on here is probably at the upper end of the upper end of reality
In the next few weeks a lot of people are going to be working full-time from home and finding out that it is entirely doable. That's going to transform people's ideas of what an office is for. Instead of being a home for working, it's going to be a convention centre.
Some of the large scale infrastructure projects being mooted are going to look very old-fashioned.
I work at home quite a lot now. It's not without its issues. One of which is what I call socialisation - the social aspects of working, talking about non-work issues in the workplace, meeting for a pint after work etc.
I also find without the interruptions of an office, I can work intensely for around 2 hours but then need to take a break to refocus. That may just be me but the notion people can work uninterrupted for long periods and maintain concentration is one I would challenge.
I do enjoy the days when I'm not on the mobile germ warfare laboratory or at the mercy of South Western Railways (clean trains but several other issues).
I work from home and can do long spells with no hassles, breaks are for wimps. I agree about the beer after work , having it alone in your home office is not quite the same.
Although I spent most of my working life in face-to-face situations, when I did have work I could do at home I got up early. I could do a good two hours, with a brief pause for toast and coffee before the phone stated ringing.
I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Can you explain why soap and water is better, like you've explained the role of alcohol?
Soap and water are pretty effective antiseptic when done for 30 seconds and every hand crevice covered, with the advantage of ready availability.
Alcohol rubs are also good, but do irritate skin and poor use can leave missed areas on hands. Good for fomites too, like mobile phones!
What about white spirit? I`ve got loads of that.
It should work as an antiviral, but I think less tested. I am not sure how easy to make it gel, probably needs 10% water as a co-factor and likely to irritate more.
None of this home made handcleaner near an open flame of course!
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Basically people who are analytical and comfortable with numbers will look at the growth rate and say, "this thing is doubling every 3 days, there doesn't seem to be a plausible mechanism to stop it doing that, it will probably carry on doing that". I'm sure people like this are attracted to political betting, which is all about numbers, and looking at trends to predict the future.
Another way of looking at it is to say, "we haven't seen things get very bad like this before as far as I can remember, and the media often make a big fuss about things that turn out to sort themselves out, it probably won't be that bad". I'd say this line of thinking will get you to the right answer more often than not, but sometimes when it's wrong, it's really, really wrong...
The SPD has consolidated in national polls, but only very slightly, at the expense of the Linke. The Hamburg elections had their own specific dynamics, the SPD came out on top but still lost 10% to the Greens.
On the national stage a Conservative/Green coalition would still be the most stable option, and quite popular among utmost centrist voters like me. The mere possibility of such a coalition is not really in question anymore.
A CDU/CSU cooperation with the AfD is inconceivable for now, it would take probably a decade of 'normalisation' for this to occur. Polling evidence also suggests that the Conservatives would lose many more votes in the middle than they could ever hope to recover from the extreme right in such a scenario.
Thank you for the local analysis, my friend.
Chasing to the right did the PP no good in Spain as they lost votes to Citizens and when they tacked back to the centre to regain those lost votes they lost another tranche to VOX so it becomes difficult for centre right parties when they are challenged from BOTH the centre AND the right.
I suspect a centrist CDU leader could do a deal with the Greens but I can't see Merz being that person in all honesty.
Except in Spain now the PSOE is in Government with the far left Podemos, the PP and Citizens and Vox are all a potential alliance.
In Germany the liberal FDP are the CDU's usual coalition partners anyway but without the AfD there is no possible right of centre majority in Germany now
I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Can you explain why soap and water is better, like you've explained the role of alcohol?
Soap and water are pretty effective antiseptic when done for 30 seconds and every hand crevice covered, with the advantage of ready availability.
Alcohol rubs are also good, but do irritate skin and poor use can leave missed areas on hands. Good for fomites too, like mobile phones!
AIUI soap, e.g. sodium stearate, works by having one part of the molecule soluble in water (Na+) and the other part soluble in oil, so I was thinking that perhaps the lipids in the virus envelope would be dissolved in the stearate (or modern equivalent) part.
I could well be wrong here but I thought that rather than killing the virus, washing well with soap and water removes it from your hands and presumably flushes it down the waste pipe where it soon dies?
I'm not saying it "kills" the virus, but it absorbs it in the oily part of the molecule and thereby removes it from from your hands into the water. Hot water is better because all chemical reactions speed up with heat (doubling per degree Celsius).
The debate on the coronavirus seems to have become polarised to the point that unless hardly anyone else dies from it, one side will claim that the "deniers" have been proved wrong, and unless it wipes out at least half the world, the other side will claim that the "fearmongerers" have been proved wrong.
The reality is of course that it will almost certainly be somewhere in the middle of those two scenarios. Both sides will then spend the next several months claiming that the other predicted something much more extreme than they actually did.
Still, it makes a change from Brexit. Albeit that didn't actually directly kill anyone.
Given the scale of the predictions made, I am not so sure. Weve seen repeated warnings, backed by cod calculations, that millions of Brits will die. A bad winter flu sees 20-30,000 at most die with flu (many of whom on their way out already). There is a stark difference between these scenarios - an order of magnitude greater than normal flu might get you to 100-150,000, whereas scaling back the SeanT apocalypse might give you an estimate of half a million. The no man's land zone is around 250,000: very much worse than normal flu but nowhere near the end of civilisation as we know it.
Interestingly (or not), 250k is my current best estimate. Based on 25-50% getting infected, and 1% mortality rate. Based on mostly gut instinct. I don't think more sophisticated models are much use in this case unless you have a whole lot of data not usually available to the general public.
I would be saying that if say 25% are infected, 90%+ of those infected will be too mild to be counted in the stats, and that therefore your 250k estimate should also be reduced by 90-95%+, but that is all speculating.
We need numbers from other countries further down the track.
The overall reported infection rate in China is 0.005% (yes, 1/200th of 1% - c80k out of 1.4bn) and the numbers are hardly going up at all.
What gives? Has all comercial activity in China entirely stopped?
One of my sons does a lot of business with China, and says everything's stopped. He's hoping that there'll be a rebound next year.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
My concern was 1/10 until two days ago when I read Foxy`s PB.com posts. It is now 2/10. That is based on the health effects.
Regarding the panic-driven financial effects: 9/10.
Those who merely mildly concerned or not too bothered at all, are about to hit brute reality.
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Basically people who are analytical and comfortable with numbers will look at the growth rate and say, "this thing is doubling every 3 days, there doesn't seem to be a plausible mechanism to stop it doing that, it will probably carry on doing that". I'm sure people like this are attracted to political betting, which is all about numbers, and looking at trends to predict the future.
Another way of looking at it is to say, "we haven't seen things get very bad like this before as far as I can remember, and the media often make a big fuss about things that turn out to sort themselves out, it probably won't be that bad". I'd say this line of thinking will get you to the right answer more often than not, but sometimes when it's wrong, it's really, really wrong...
I am moderately comforted by events in China, and think their numbers are probably kosher. There is every reason to believe that public health measures can stop it here too, at some economic cost.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak, and on a fairly steep rising part of a bell curve. How high that peak is, is speculative at present.
I'm getting confused. Does soap and water work on this virus? Do standard carex hand washes work?
I seem to be seeing stuff now that talks about need for alcohol-based cleaners (60%+).
I think, what they are saying is;
If you use alcohol-based sanitizes, (instead of soap), then it must be over 60% Alcohol to work.
Somebody correct me if wrong.
I think its soap works perfectly, but you need proper handwashing techniques - at least 20 seconds and scrub your entire hand on both hands.
If you're using hand sanitiser instead of soaps then over 60% works, but its wasteful if you've access to soap and water, its perfect for if you lack access to soap and water. You still need to scrub all over both hands with it.
Hopefully after this all the growing niche attempts to take alcohol out of stuff it belongs in will go away. There were increasing amounts of "alcohol free" hand sanitisers on the market for 'religious' or 'social' or 'conscious' reasons which are quite frankly useless junk. The reason alcohol is in hand sanitisers is because it works and its not like you're drinking the stuff.
With the hand washing it's mostly the hot water that either kills the virus or gets it off your hands. With the sanitizer it's the alcohol, because the liquid evaporates and nothing leaves your skin. Yes this needs to be at 60%. The stuff flying off the shelves is mostly way short.
I have a tin of 99.7% isopropyl alcohol for cleaning PCBs, but apparently that is too strong for use as an anitviral. It seems there needs to be some water in there to optimise penetration of the viral envelope. About 70% is best, from what I've read.
Yes, the alcohol attacks the lipids and proteins in the virus envelope. 60-90% is the required strength and water assists the breakdown. Adding hydrogen peroxide solution helps too, as does benzalkalonium. Isopropyl alcohol is probably better than ethanol as it dries more slowly, so longer contact time.
Soap and water is better when available, but rubs are good when out and about.
Can you explain why soap and water is better, like you've explained the role of alcohol?
Soap and water are pretty effective antiseptic when done for 30 seconds and every hand crevice covered, with the advantage of ready availability.
Alcohol rubs are also good, but do irritate skin and poor use can leave missed areas on hands. Good for fomites too, like mobile phones!
AIUI soap, e.g. sodium stearate, works by having one part of the molecule soluble in water (Na+) and the other part soluble in oil, so I was thinking that perhaps the lipids in the virus envelope would be dissolved in the stearate (or modern equivalent) part.
I could well be wrong here but I thought that rather than killing the virus, washing well with soap and water removes it from your hands and presumably flushes it down the waste pipe where it soon dies?
I'm not saying it "kills" the virus, but it absorbs it in the oily part of the molecule and thereby removes it from from your hands into the water. Hot water is better because all chemical reactions speed up with heat (doubling per degree Celsius).
Mr. Mark, it must be said, when I thought the Vietnamese Grand Prix might not go ahead due to coronavirus that was entirely due to a belief there might be too much of the disease in that country, not due to potential quarantine restrictions affecting Ferrari.
F1 journalists are reporting that Bahraini authorities are already getting in touch with people and asking about their travel plans, which countries they are visiting before they arrive in Bahrain etc. They’re working hard to make sure the race will go ahead as scheduled.
I was going to go there, but have decided against it now - planes and large crowds don’t appeal for the next few months.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
Even if the pandemic turns out to be "just another type of flu" it is still an interesting topic to follow. The spread of viruses is dominated by random processes and followinng them is not easy. On top of that the political aspect comparing how different countries are preparing/coping with outbreaks is interesting.
And of course it is important that the medical and political organisations keep on top of it, because there is a real possibility it bcomes a "level 8-9 concern" and if that happens it could happen very quickly.
As for PB, it seems there are all types here from coronapocolyse types to the "ignore it and it'll go away by itself" types. Most people are more in the middle but enjoy posting about it. I'm trying to keep a balanced opinion, and calling out stupid extrapolations or totally unfounded and scientifically dodgy comments.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
My concern was 1/10 until two days ago when I read Foxy`s PB.com posts. It is now 2/10. That is based on the health effects.
Regarding the panic-driven financial effects: 9/10.
I'd say my personal health concern = 2/10 My concern for friends and family health = 5/10 (elderly relatives) Concern for public health services = 7/10 Impact on the economy = 10/10.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
Even if the pandemic turns out to be "just another type of flu" it is still an interesting topic to follow. The spread of viruses is dominated by random processes and followinng them is not easy. On top of that the political aspect comparing how different countries are preparing/coping with outbreaks is interesting.
And of course it is important that the medical and political organisations keep on top of it, because there is a real possibility it bcomes a "level 8-9 concern" and if that happens it could happen very quickly.
As for PB, it seems there are all types here from coronapocolyse types to the "ignore it and it'll go away by itself" types. Most people are more in the middle but enjoy posting about it. I'm trying to keep a balanced opinion, and calling out stupid extrapolations or totally unfounded and scientifically dodgy comments.
It's nice to see some commonsense among the drivel from the extremists on either sid.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
Mr. Mark, it must be said, when I thought the Vietnamese Grand Prix might not go ahead due to coronavirus that was entirely due to a belief there might be too much of the disease in that country, not due to potential quarantine restrictions affecting Ferrari.
F1 journalists are reporting that Bahraini authorities are already getting in touch with people and asking about their travel plans, which countries they are visiting before they arrive in Bahrain etc. They’re working hard to make sure the race will go ahead as scheduled.
I was going to go there, but have decided against it now - planes and large crowds don’t appeal for the next few months.
My informant, who is quite senior in FOM, was talking yesterday about going to Bahrein.
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Basically people who are analytical and comfortable with numbers will look at the growth rate and say, "this thing is doubling every 3 days, there doesn't seem to be a plausible mechanism to stop it doing that, it will probably carry on doing that". I'm sure people like this are attracted to political betting, which is all about numbers, and looking at trends to predict the future.
Another way of looking at it is to say, "we haven't seen things get very bad like this before as far as I can remember, and the media often make a big fuss about things that turn out to sort themselves out, it probably won't be that bad". I'd say this line of thinking will get you to the right answer more often than not, but sometimes when it's wrong, it's really, really wrong...
I am moderately comforted by events in China, and think their numbers are probably kosher. There is every reason to believe that public health measures can stop it here too, at some economic cost.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak, and on a fairly steep rising part of a bell curve. How high that peak is, is speculative at present.
What is it about the quarantining of an entire City that comforts you? Do you think we have the will to do what the Chinese thought necessary?
There is two broad ways of tackling this problem: 1) Top-down goverment control. Like the Chinese. 2) Bottom-up, citizen control. Like the Koreans (with a bit of 1).
We are going for the British approach which is a group of very clever people telling the masses what they should be doing to keep everyone safe. Unfortunatley the masses either don't believe the clever people or they are totally ignorant or they simply don't care.
For this once in a century pandemic I worry it is not going to be a very successful model
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
Even if the pandemic turns out to be "just another type of flu" it is still an interesting topic to follow. The spread of viruses is dominated by random processes and followinng them is not easy. On top of that the political aspect comparing how different countries are preparing/coping with outbreaks is interesting.
And of course it is important that the medical and political organisations keep on top of it, because there is a real possibility it bcomes a "level 8-9 concern" and if that happens it could happen very quickly.
As for PB, it seems there are all types here from coronapocolyse types to the "ignore it and it'll go away by itself" types. Most people are more in the middle but enjoy posting about it. I'm trying to keep a balanced opinion, and calling out stupid extrapolations or totally unfounded and scientifically dodgy comments.
It's nice to see some commonsense among the drivel from the extremists on either sid.
Personally, I'd rather put my trust in evidence-based theories than "common sense".
About face-touching. Perhaps one way of dealing with this is this. After washing hands, wear a left glove and remove it (with the contaminated ungloved right hand) when you go to touch your face, and train yourself to use only the left hand for face-touching.
Good one. Out of the box.
Even without the gloves that might work. Simply do everything with one hand and keep washing that hand.
(Re gym discussion, I've stopped on account of the virus but I'm still going swimming.)
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
That chimes entirely with my own experience, as I said earlier.
They could all be wrong though.
Our local Bridge club had a full house this week (not including me). It's hard to think of a more efficient way to spread the infection than playing cards, duplicate wallets and people changing tables every couple of hands. And given the average age, the mortality rate would be in grand slam territory.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Basically people who are analytical and comfortable with numbers will look at the growth rate and say, "this thing is doubling every 3 days, there doesn't seem to be a plausible mechanism to stop it doing that, it will probably carry on doing that". I'm sure people like this are attracted to political betting, which is all about numbers, and looking at trends to predict the future.
Another way of looking at it is to say, "we haven't seen things get very bad like this before as far as I can remember, and the media often make a big fuss about things that turn out to sort themselves out, it probably won't be that bad". I'd say this line of thinking will get you to the right answer more often than not, but sometimes when it's wrong, it's really, really wrong...
I am moderately comforted by events in China, and think their numbers are probably kosher. There is every reason to believe that public health measures can stop it here too, at some economic cost.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak, and on a fairly steep rising part of a bell curve. How high that peak is, is speculative at present.
What is it about the quarantining of an entire City that comforts you? Do you think we have the will to do what the Chinese thought necessary?
There is two broad ways of tackling this problem: 1) Top-down goverment control. Like the Chinese. 2) Bottom-up, citizen control. Like the Koreans (with a bit of 1).
We are going for the British approach which is a group of very clever people telling the masses what they should be doing to keep everyone safe. Unfortunatley the masses either don't believe the clever people or they are totally ignorant or they simply don't care.
For this once in a century pandemic I worry it is not going to be a very successful model
Oh, it is certainly possible to screw it up, but I think that unlike America the Public Health people here are competent, and government is listening.
We simply have very limited surge capacity in the NHS, so need public health measures to make it manageable.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
True for me too. I'm a chronic toucher of myself pretty much everywhere. It takes a conscious effort not to, and even then I catch myself. Could do with handcuffs.
Telling people not to do something is a fool's errand. Like me saying 'Don't think about purple elephants'. Better to tell people to do something instead. I don't know what the active positive equivalent to not touching your face is mind. But I am sure there is one.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
True for me too. I'm a chronic toucher of myself pretty much everywhere. It takes a conscious effort not to, and even then I catch myself. Could do with handcuffs.
Telling people not to do something is a fool's errand. Like me saying 'Don't think about purple elephants'. Better to tell people to do something instead. I don't know what the active positive equivalent to not touching your face is mind. But I am sure there is one.
Upon reflection, I think the best advice is, sanitise/clean your hands before you digitally probe your face. That way it leads to more handwashing.
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Basically people who are analytical and comfortable with numbers will look at the growth rate and say, "this thing is doubling every 3 days, there doesn't seem to be a plausible mechanism to stop it doing that, it will probably carry on doing that". I'm sure people like this are attracted to political betting, which is all about numbers, and looking at trends to predict the future.
Another way of looking at it is to say, "we haven't seen things get very bad like this before as far as I can remember, and the media often make a big fuss about things that turn out to sort themselves out, it probably won't be that bad". I'd say this line of thinking will get you to the right answer more often than not, but sometimes when it's wrong, it's really, really wrong...
I am moderately comforted by events in China, and think their numbers are probably kosher. There is every reason to believe that public health measures can stop it here too, at some economic cost.
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak, and on a fairly steep rising part of a bell curve. How high that peak is, is speculative at present.
What is it about the quarantining of an entire City that comforts you? Do you think we have the will to do what the Chinese thought necessary?
There is two broad ways of tackling this problem: 1) Top-down goverment control. Like the Chinese. 2) Bottom-up, citizen control. Like the Koreans (with a bit of 1).
We are going for the British approach which is a group of very clever people telling the masses what they should be doing to keep everyone safe. Unfortunatley the masses either don't believe the clever people or they are totally ignorant or they simply don't care.
For this once in a century pandemic I worry it is not going to be a very successful model
Oh, it is certainly possible to screw it up, but I think that unlike America the Public Health people here are competent, and government is listening.
We simply have very limited surge capacity in the NHS, so need public health measures to make it manageable.
Public health are doing a great job so far of modelling and isolating. Agree on that.
But I think the opinion of your average Jo suggests they are not doing a good job of communicating the risks here. To be fair to them, whether it is possible to inform the average Jo of anything anymore is the more fundamental question.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
True for me too. I'm a chronic toucher of myself pretty much everywhere. It takes a conscious effort not to, and even then I catch myself. Could do with handcuffs.
Telling people not to do something is a fool's errand. Like me saying 'Don't think about purple elephants'. Better to tell people to do something instead. I don't know what the active positive equivalent to not touching your face is mind. But I am sure there is one.
Perhaps just having something to fidget with, clicking a pen top or similar. It's mostly just a case of having something to occupy your hands instead
Except in Spain now the PSOE is in Government with the far left Podemos, the PP and Citizens and Vox are all a potential alliance.
In Germany the liberal FDP are the CDU's usual coalition partners anyway but without the AfD there is no possible right of centre majority in Germany now
As far as Spain is concerned, Citizens are a busted flush (4% in the latest poll). PP and VOX are now scrapping for the role of top centre-right party (20 and 19% respectively in the latest poll) so yes a PP-VOX coalition currently polls the same as the PSOE-Podemos coalition (41%).
If VOX start outpolling PP it becomes a significant change in Spanish politics and we may yet see PP back toward the centre.
In Germany the problem is FDP are sinking back (6% in the latest YouGov) so will they even be in the next Bundestag? That puts the CDU/CSU as you say with either going in with the AfD (combined at just over 40%) or staying with SPD (about the same)?
I'd also offer the thought of a Union/Green coalition which is what is happening in Austria and which would enjoy a clear majority in the Bundestag.
So much depends on who the CDU choose as their Spitzenkandidat next month.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
Even if the pandemic turns out to be "just another type of flu" it is still an interesting topic to follow. The spread of viruses is dominated by random processes and followinng them is not easy. On top of that the political aspect comparing how different countries are preparing/coping with outbreaks is interesting.
And of course it is important that the medical and political organisations keep on top of it, because there is a real possibility it bcomes a "level 8-9 concern" and if that happens it could happen very quickly.
As for PB, it seems there are all types here from coronapocolyse types to the "ignore it and it'll go away by itself" types. Most people are more in the middle but enjoy posting about it. I'm trying to keep a balanced opinion, and calling out stupid extrapolations or totally unfounded and scientifically dodgy comments.
It's nice to see some commonsense among the drivel from the extremists on either sid.
Personally, I'd rather put my trust in evidence-based theories than "common sense".
Or you could say that the evidence-based thoeries are the common sense theories!
One of L's parameters is the maximum value or "carrying capacity". The good news is that this has now decreased from a number of the order of 10^10 (larger than the world's population) all the way down to 85983.
Apologies if following comes across as snarky. It isn't intended in that spirit!
You do seem to be getting really "into" this whole modelling thing. Rather than toy around with it, have you considered looking at how the professionals do it and try to do it "properly"? It isn't that hard to learn the basics, and there are some pretty accessible texts available on it - not the most comprehensive on the market, but a good start for a beginner with some statistical knowledge already, might be Vynnycky and White?
Re carrying capacity, in a simple and well set-up (ie "no way substantially more than the world's population could get infected") model, there's a wonderfully simple relationship with R0, the basic reproduction number (average number of people you'd expect an infectious person to infect, if they mix with a completely susceptible population). In practice, once quite a few of their contacts are either already infected by the disease or immune to it, then the average number of people they'll infect will actually be the net reproduction number, Rn = R0 times the proportion of susceptible individuals in the population. (So eg if R0 is 2 but 30% of people are already infected or immune, then the number of people an infectious person will infecte Rn = 2 x 0.7 = 1.4.)
If an equilibrium is reached, then clearly the net reproduction number needs to equal one (higher than that and the number of new infectious individuals is still increasing, below that and it's falling). But in that case, R0 x s = 1 and so the proportion of susceptible individuals is s = 1/R0. The number who are not susceptible (either immune or infected) is 1 - 1/R0. So if R0 = 2 then we expect an equilibrium in which 50% of people are infected or immune (eg because of previous infection) and 50% remain susceptible; if R0 = 4 then 75% of people are infected or immune and 25% remain susceptible.
For a variety of reasons R0 can change over space and time, and more sophisticated models have "compartments" eg for different age groups.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
True for me too. I'm a chronic toucher of myself pretty much everywhere. It takes a conscious effort not to, and even then I catch myself. Could do with handcuffs.
Telling people not to do something is a fool's errand. Like me saying 'Don't think about purple elephants'. Better to tell people to do something instead. I don't know what the active positive equivalent to not touching your face is mind. But I am sure there is one.
I'm finding myself scratching the back of my head instead - I can't stop myself moving my hand, but by the time its almost at my face I can move it round. At some point though my colleagues are going to think I have nits or something instead though...
My gf is on maternity leave and I work from gone anyway... all we seem to be taking about is how many people have got the virus and whether we dare get a haircut or go to the gym, while everyone else I know is going to work, getting the tube etc
I’d say PB is a place where people like to argue about the best way to solve potential problems in general, and the more obscure & unlikely the hypothetical scenario, the better. We see it with ‘Could obscure politician no ones heard of (David Leadbitter?) be the next PM?’, ‘Who will be in the cabinet of the Govt of national unity?’ & so on, so while there is something going on, the level of scrutiny on here is probably at the upper end of the upper end of reality.
I think the virus is interesting and a genuine crisis of the first order, however it's a shame how it is blotting out everything else. The Labour Leadership, for example. We are entering the final 28 days of Corbyn. This is both poignant and politically huge, yet so little comment on it, either here or elsewhere.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
Elderly people will be urged to avoid crowded areas or stay at home entirely when coronavirus becomes more widespread, the UK's chief medical officer has said
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Yes when you step into PB you have to every so often look out of the window to confirm that the world is still spinning.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
My concern was 1/10 until two days ago when I read Foxy`s PB.com posts. It is now 2/10. That is based on the health effects.
Regarding the panic-driven financial effects: 9/10.
I'd say my personal health concern = 2/10 My concern for friends and family health = 5/10 (elderly relatives) Concern for public health services = 7/10 Impact on the economy = 10/10.
Interesting breakdown. I'll add one.
My personal health concern = 1/10 My concern for friends and family health = 10/10 (elderly relatives), 1/10 (everyone else) Concern for public health services = 7/10 Impact on the economy = 8/10 Impact on the stock market = 2/10
My grandparents are very elderly, so my concern for their health is always at least 9/10 even without this virus. I don't care about the damage done to the stock market, it will recover.
I've not commented lately because I'm having to reset my password literally each and every time I try to sign in at the moment...
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
That chimes entirely with my own experience, as I said earlier.
They could all be wrong though.
Our local Bridge club had a full house this week (not including me). It's hard to think of a more efficient way to spread the infection than playing cards, duplicate wallets and people changing tables every couple of hands. And given the average age, the mortality rate would be in grand slam territory.
Pretty hard to trump that. But the risk of a carrier being there is very low to non existent at the moment. Next months meeting might be one to skip.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
True for me too. I'm a chronic toucher of myself pretty much everywhere. It takes a conscious effort not to, and even then I catch myself. Could do with handcuffs.
Telling people not to do something is a fool's errand. Like me saying 'Don't think about purple elephants'. Better to tell people to do something instead. I don't know what the active positive equivalent to not touching your face is mind. But I am sure there is one.
Perhaps just having something to fidget with, clicking a pen top or similar. It's mostly just a case of having something to occupy your hands instead
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
True for me too. I'm a chronic toucher of myself pretty much everywhere. It takes a conscious effort not to, and even then I catch myself. Could do with handcuffs.
Telling people not to do something is a fool's errand. Like me saying 'Don't think about purple elephants'. Better to tell people to do something instead. I don't know what the active positive equivalent to not touching your face is mind. But I am sure there is one.
Perhaps just having something to fidget with, clicking a pen top or similar. It's mostly just a case of having something to occupy your hands instead
A lot of the face touching is entirely unconscious. On the radio this morning, the interviewee noted that his interviewer had touched his face 5 times over the past few minutes without thinking about it. Not touching your face at all is surprisingly difficult.
True for me too. I'm a chronic toucher of myself pretty much everywhere. It takes a conscious effort not to, and even then I catch myself. Could do with handcuffs.
Telling people not to do something is a fool's errand. Like me saying 'Don't think about purple elephants'. Better to tell people to do something instead. I don't know what the active positive equivalent to not touching your face is mind. But I am sure there is one.
Perhaps just having something to fidget with, clicking a pen top or similar. It's mostly just a case of having something to occupy your hands instead
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
A "PC cleaner" has just wiped out all my browser history. A good Covid-19 website was recommended here a few times, can someone repost it, thanks. It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
Comments
‘Buy my new book’ 😊
We need numbers from other countries further down the track.
I avoided peppery foodstuffs, getting too drunk (so I wouldn't lose self-control) and every time I felt the need to sneeze (which was surprisingly often) I willed it away. Between feeling you need to sneeze and being terrified of going blind in one eye if you do even once, the latter was able to win out every time.
Was also the longest fortnight of my life though. Two weeks is a very long time when you're afraid of what can happen like that.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Perhaps.
I kept my sight and only have a few scars to show for it; the eye socket hurts in cold weather other than that I fully recovered.
Good news.
Last night's figure at Worldometers for the number of cases outside of China by the end of 5 March was 17862. My models G and L predicted 18074 or 18513.
I have now tweaked both G and L to take account of the last few days' figures while disregarding the first few days' which were under 1000. This gives 16 data points. An asterisk denotes the most up-to-date version of each model.
L is the better choice of curve "theoretically", and L* also gives a slightly better fit than G* (R^2 = 0.9986 as against 0.9982). While G may have outscored L in predicting the most recent figure, these are two reasons to believe L* may be a better predictor than G*.
One of L's parameters is the maximum value or "carrying capacity". The good news is that this has now decreased from a number of the order of 10^10 (larger than the world's population) all the way down to 85983.
L* predicts as follows:
6 Mar 21320
7 Mar 25089
8 Mar 29223
9 Mar 33662
10 Mar 38320
11 Mar 43092
12 Mar 47861 <- daily increase starts to decrease
13 Mar 52512
14 Mar 56940
15 Mar 61060
16 Mar 64813
17 Mar 68165
18 Mar 71109
19 Mar 73654
20 Mar 75826
21 Mar 77659
22 Mar 79190
23 Mar 80460
24 Mar 81506
25 Mar 82363
26 Mar 83061
27 Mar 83629
28 Mar 84089
29 Mar 84461
30 Mar 84761
31 Mar 85002
... and fewer than 1000 new cases thereafter, which we can define as the virus being under control.
G* predicts:
6 Mar 21725
7 Mar 26074
8 Mar 31203
9 Mar 37235
10 Mar 44305
...
31 Mar 878230
...
2 Apr >1 million
...
9 May 7796123
Takeaway:
* 3300-3400 new cases today => virus under control before March is out
* 3600-3700 new cases => keep thinking "Apocalypse".
Since a daily figure is highly sensitive to what may happen in only one country, e.g. a change in testing or reporting policy in South Korea or wherever, it might be better to hold off until the end of next Tuesday, 10 March.
This figure will be published in the early hours of the 11th:
* total of 38000 => under control by end of March, with <90K infections
* total of 44000 => expect many millions more to be infected.
Virus could be Johnson's Black Wednesday if the under funding of NHS becomes brutally exposed in next few months.
e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8082011/Half-Britains-coronavirus-patients-sent-home-against-EU-advice.html
Anyway, it seems to me that the proportion of the public who are worried about Coronavirus is vastly overrepresented on PB. In my circle of family and friends I honestly don't know anyone who is very worried... and that includes my Daily Express reading 92-year-old grandad who isn't at all concerned.
Speaking of which -
"And sometimes when we touch
The honesty's too much
And I have to close my eyes
And hide
I want to hold you till I die
Till we both break down and cry
I want to hold you till the fear in me subsides"
Is there a more intense and yet refreshingly non-raunchy evocation of physical love in the annals of popular music than this? Not for me.
What gives? Has all comercial activity in China entirely stopped?
They could all be wrong though.
Then again, much of the media (talking about the Graun online here) is also culpable.
But PB has taken what for most people (all walking around, taking the tube, going to spinning classes, whatever) is a 3-5 concern, and cranked it up to 11.
Who is right? We shall see but I'm with the 3-5 wash your hands be sensible crowd.
That will change rapidly if/when the government starts introducing serious restrictions and/or people they know of succumb to the virus.
Regarding the panic-driven financial effects: 9/10.
2) I think very few people pay for phone calls. The cost is generally line rental; once you have that, number of calls tends to be immaterial. In general.
I would be much rather looking at someone who can appeal to the MPs who represents the newly won seats in the North and Midlands. If a credible candidate appears, the support of that bloc would easily see the candidate into the final round.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/hand-sanitiser-or-hand-washing-which-more-effective-against-coronavirus-covid-19
None of this home made handcleaner near an open flame of course!
I’d say PB is a place where people like to argue about the best way to solve potential problems in general, and the more obscure & unlikely the hypothetical scenario, the better. We see it with ‘Could obscure politician no ones heard of (David Leadbitter?) be the next PM?’, ‘Who will be in the cabinet of the Govt of national unity?’ & so on, so while there is something going on, the level of scrutiny on here is probably at the upper end of the upper end of reality
https://www.adn.com/opinions/national-opinions/2020/03/03/the-new-coronavirus-growth-debate/
Basically people who are analytical and comfortable with numbers will look at the growth rate and say, "this thing is doubling every 3 days, there doesn't seem to be a plausible mechanism to stop it doing that, it will probably carry on doing that". I'm sure people like this are attracted to political betting, which is all about numbers, and looking at trends to predict the future.
Another way of looking at it is to say, "we haven't seen things get very bad like this before as far as I can remember, and the media often make a big fuss about things that turn out to sort themselves out, it probably won't be that bad". I'd say this line of thinking will get you to the right answer more often than not, but sometimes when it's wrong, it's really, really wrong...
In Germany the liberal FDP are the CDU's usual coalition partners anyway but without the AfD there is no possible right of centre majority in Germany now
Mr. Sandpit, alarming thought.
Mr. Thompson, sorry to hear about that attack, but glad you managed not to sneeze.
This is bad. Very very bad.
Here’s the most recent case - quickly traced:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/5-new-covid-19-cases-in-spore-including-4-linked-to-a-new-cluster-a-private-dinner?cx_testId=20&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=6#cxrecs_s
I reckon we are about 8 weeks off the peak, and on a fairly steep rising part of a bell curve. How high that peak is, is speculative at present.
I was going to go there, but have decided against it now - planes and large crowds don’t appeal for the next few months.
And of course it is important that the medical and political organisations keep on top of it, because there is a real possibility it bcomes a "level 8-9 concern" and if that happens it could happen very quickly.
As for PB, it seems there are all types here from coronapocolyse types to the "ignore it and it'll go away by itself" types. Most people are more in the middle but enjoy posting about it. I'm trying to keep a balanced opinion, and calling out stupid extrapolations or totally unfounded and scientifically dodgy comments.
My concern for friends and family health = 5/10 (elderly relatives)
Concern for public health services = 7/10
Impact on the economy = 10/10.
It has a world map with the cases/deaths/recoverd numbers on the left hand side, and you can click on each country to get the individual country's data and graphics.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/singapore-grounds-passengers-on-turkish-airlines-flight-over-covid-19-concerns
There is two broad ways of tackling this problem:
1) Top-down goverment control. Like the Chinese.
2) Bottom-up, citizen control. Like the Koreans (with a bit of 1).
We are going for the British approach which is a group of very clever people telling the masses what they should be doing to keep everyone safe. Unfortunatley the masses either don't believe the clever people or they are totally ignorant or they simply don't care.
For this once in a century pandemic I worry it is not going to be a very successful model
Even without the gloves that might work. Simply do everything with one hand and keep washing that hand.
(Re gym discussion, I've stopped on account of the virus but I'm still going swimming.)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200305-sitrep-45-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ed2ba78b_2
We simply have very limited surge capacity in the NHS, so need public health measures to make it manageable.
Until they have to, people won't be eating those emergency stock purchases.
But I think the opinion of your average Jo suggests they are not doing a good job of communicating the risks here. To be fair to them, whether it is possible to inform the average Jo of anything anymore is the more fundamental question.
If VOX start outpolling PP it becomes a significant change in Spanish politics and we may yet see PP back toward the centre.
In Germany the problem is FDP are sinking back (6% in the latest YouGov) so will they even be in the next Bundestag? That puts the CDU/CSU as you say with either going in with the AfD (combined at just over 40%) or staying with SPD (about the same)?
I'd also offer the thought of a Union/Green coalition which is what is happening in Austria and which would enjoy a clear majority in the Bundestag.
So much depends on who the CDU choose as their Spitzenkandidat next month.
You do seem to be getting really "into" this whole modelling thing. Rather than toy around with it, have you considered looking at how the professionals do it and try to do it "properly"? It isn't that hard to learn the basics, and there are some pretty accessible texts available on it - not the most comprehensive on the market, but a good start for a beginner with some statistical knowledge already, might be Vynnycky and White?
Re carrying capacity, in a simple and well set-up (ie "no way substantially more than the world's population could get infected") model, there's a wonderfully simple relationship with R0, the basic reproduction number (average number of people you'd expect an infectious person to infect, if they mix with a completely susceptible population). In practice, once quite a few of their contacts are either already infected by the disease or immune to it, then the average number of people they'll infect will actually be the net reproduction number, Rn = R0 times the proportion of susceptible individuals in the population. (So eg if R0 is 2 but 30% of people are already infected or immune, then the number of people an infectious person will infecte Rn = 2 x 0.7 = 1.4.)
If an equilibrium is reached, then clearly the net reproduction number needs to equal one (higher than that and the number of new infectious individuals is still increasing, below that and it's falling). But in that case, R0 x s = 1 and so the proportion of susceptible individuals is s = 1/R0. The number who are not susceptible (either immune or infected) is 1 - 1/R0. So if R0 = 2 then we expect an equilibrium in which 50% of people are infected or immune (eg because of previous infection) and 50% remain susceptible; if R0 = 4 then 75% of people are infected or immune and 25% remain susceptible.
For a variety of reasons R0 can change over space and time, and more sophisticated models have "compartments" eg for different age groups.
The one I liked had a timeline graph for each country when you click on it.
My personal health concern = 1/10
My concern for friends and family health = 10/10 (elderly relatives), 1/10 (everyone else)
Concern for public health services = 7/10
Impact on the economy = 8/10
Impact on the stock market = 2/10
My grandparents are very elderly, so my concern for their health is always at least 9/10 even without this virus. I don't care about the damage done to the stock market, it will recover.