Two weeks ago the Italian infection rate was similar to ours now:
26 Feb - Italy: 374 9 March - UK: 321
Should other countries suspend flights to the UK now?
If you are a country which genuinely doesn't have it or has very few, all traceable cases then yes I would suggest suspending flights to some of these European countries including the UK might be a very sensible idea.
Still doesn't make sense. If he doesn't have grand designs for the presidency beyond standing aside for someone else later, why is he getting in the way?
I called it the other day, he's going to announce he'll only serve one term.
If Biden gets in then his VP pick should probably be favorite for the 2024 nom. On that basis I wonder if he goes for Buttigieg, who definitely posted the strongest Dem numbers without the benefits of being either
On top of the personal tragedy, rather concerning how many of these people appear to already be in hospital then test positive.
I don't think it is concerning.
They may only be in hospital right at the end
Secondly it may well be that they died with the coronavirus rather because of the coronavirus.
the wording sort of implies they were being treated in hospital for something else. perhaps (TSE) (edit I mean FrancisU) is suggesting that people are catching it in hospitals, which should be a concern.
Yes. Every time I see a new UK case Italy seems to be the origin. Why the hell have we been faffing around?
Because of a fatalistic belief that it cannot be stopped so we shouldn't do anything too hasty that might damage the economy or inconvenience people. I'm simplifying but that is ultimately the truth.
Bollocks. It's about managing peoples behaviour to minimise the *inevitable* peak. Going full on North Korea now would mean people were saying "sod this, I'm off to the pub anyway" at the worst possible time.
We stop Italians coming in from Italy, they're going to fly from Geneva or Marseilles. Or the virus would enter from France, or Germany, or Ireland. All this armchair expert tosh is ridiculous. "They should have done it this way". I'm not an expert, but I can see that people like the Chief Medical Officer is, and I'm going to take his line over that of a retired accountant on a betting site.
What has going to the pub got to do with stopping flights from Italy? They are totally separate things.
It's not necessarily Italians leaving Italy coming here. It's British people unnecessarily flying to a country where the virus is rampant. If it's not necessary - why do it? How do you smooth the curve and delay the inevitable if you have an open door and let people in? You don't.
I appreciate people now want to cling to some higher order making extremely clever decisions. But there is also the chance they are making poor decisions. Time will tell, we are all on the boat together now.
Your crystal ball gazing is something to behold.
So people who went to Italy for a fortnight before this lockdown was in place should have known what hadn't happened yet and have not flown there in the first place? Since they weren't farsighted enough we shouldn't let them return home now?
You don't need a crystal ball to predict the future with pandemics. Fairly simple trends are quite easy to extrapolate from. That's why three weeks ago or more I was deeply concerned about this virus whilst you were informing people that it was analogous to a swimming pool accident.
Regarding the specifics of Italy. We could have been faster and more aggressive with issuing guidance not to travel there. Fairly simple stuff really.
I have zero interest in engaging with you further.
The Dow bounce didn’t last long, and it looks like we’ll soon be dicking about around the key 24,000.
Although the Dow is not a sensible index. The S&P500 is much more useful.
Yesterday, the market dropped to 12 month lows. But it is worth remembering that if you bought the index a year ago, then once you include dividends, you wouldn't actually be sitting on a loss.
So we probably shouldn't overstate the scale of this drop.
(Also, using the Schiller Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings Ratio, the stock market is pretty expensive: https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
Indeed, the S&P500 could drop by half and the price would still only look reasonable.)
Still doesn't make sense. If he doesn't have grand designs for the presidency beyond standing aside for someone else later, why is he getting in the way?
Well, he has the profile with older and black voters that someone like Buttigieg or Clinton doesn't, for instance, and the political experience that Michelle Obama doesn't.
(BBC) On Monday, health officials said people who showed "even minor" signs of respiratory tract infections or a fever would - within the next 14 days - be told to self-isolate for a week in an effort to tackle the outbreak.
Why not now ?
Because its still common cold season so it would be too many people at the moment who all just have the common cold, so the message would end up being ignored, which would be counter-productive.
In a couple of weeks common colds will be much, much less common so it can be listened to and obeyed.
Hayfever soon. I fear us missing out on a good outcome in the government's pursuit of perfection.
Grass pollen season doesn't begin for a couple more months.
Prediction: Hay Fever sufferers are going to be social pariahs this year.
I know they have Brexit and Boris Derangement Syndrome, but that is not excuse in a time of crisis.
It's disgraceful, especially if it's done knowingly, but the political campaigners behind the government did kind of open Pandora's box when they did the same in that Kier Starmer clip during the election.
In the same way, the government concerns about fake news sites would be easier to swallow had their campaigning not pushed the boundaries quite so hard (remember FactCheckUK?)
What is good for the goose is good for the gander
It serves them right.
Its not about goose and gander. This isn't the too and fro of partisan politicking, we're not in an election campaign, we're in a healthcare scare and there is no justification at all for misinformation right now.
This isn't a game.
So it was just a game when your side did it to Starmer?
Besides, they did not alter instructions to hospitals and doctors, they just highlighted what we all know anyway - that Boris is a gung-ho, verbal-rambler who may trouble to distinguish his gluteus maximus from his cubitum. That is precisely why it is so believable.
Didn't the edited clip suggest the government policy was to do nothing, and that they were just going to let people die? Yes, that's exactly the sort of message the public want to hear.
Totally irresponsible.
Does it though ? Boris puts "One of the theories is that" before his sentence, which isn't edited out.
It is quite an interesting clip. Johnson implies he did discuss quite seriously whether there was any need to intervene to slow down the progress of the epidemic. Which is good. You should always understand what the alternatives are before making a decision. He also suggests he is in favour of a relatively light touch intervention - "strike a balance", "without taking draconian measures". The key point is that the choice isn't between total lockdown and doing nothing. There is a spectrum of measures that can be taken. Which ones you do is a judgment call.
Yes, and that's a political decision that has to be made by politicians. You can't simply say, "we're following scientific advice" and leave it at that. That's a cop out. Science can determine the options, but politicians have to choose from the available options.
The Dow bounce didn’t last long, and it looks like we’ll soon be dicking about around the key 24,000.
Although the Dow is not a sensible index. The S&P500 is much more useful.
Yesterday, the market dropped to 12 month lows. But it is worth remembering that if you bought the index a year ago, then once you include dividends, you wouldn't actually be sitting on a loss.
So we probably shouldn't overstate the scale of this drop.
Yes. Every time I see a new UK case Italy seems to be the origin. Why the hell have we been faffing around?
Because of a fatalistic belief that it cannot be stopped so we shouldn't do anything too hasty that might damage the economy or inconvenience people. I'm simplifying but that is ultimately the truth.
Bollocks. It's about managing peoples behaviour to minimise the *inevitable* peak. Going full on North Korea now would mean people were saying "sod this, I'm off to the pub anyway" at the worst possible time.
We stop Italians coming in from Italy, they're going to fly from Geneva or Marseilles. Or the virus would enter from France, or Germany, or Ireland. All this armchair expert tosh is ridiculous. "They should have done it this way". I'm not an expert, but I can see that people like the Chief Medical Officer is, and I'm going to take his line over that of a retired accountant on a betting site.
What has going to the pub got to do with stopping flights from Italy? They are totally separate things.
It's not necessarily Italians leaving Italy coming here. It's British people unnecessarily flying to a country where the virus is rampant. If it's not necessary - why do it? How do you smooth the curve and delay the inevitable if you have an open door and let people in? You don't.
I appreciate people now want to cling to some higher order making extremely clever decisions. But there is also the chance they are making poor decisions. Time will tell, we are all on the boat together now.
Your crystal ball gazing is something to behold.
So people who went to Italy for a fortnight before this lockdown was in place should have known what hadn't happened yet and have not flown there in the first place? Since they weren't farsighted enough we shouldn't let them return home now?
You don't need a crystal ball to predict the future with pandemics. Fairly simple trends are quite easy to extrapolate from. That's why three weeks ago or more I was deeply concerned about this virus whilst you were informing people that it was analogous to a swimming pool accident.
Regarding the specifics of Italy. We could have been faster and more aggressive with issuing guidance not to travel there. Fairly simple stuff really.
I have zero interest in engaging with you further.
Two weeks ago the Italian infection rate was similar to ours now:
26 Feb - Italy: 374 9 March - UK: 321
Should other countries suspend flights to the UK now?
If you are a country which genuinely doesn't have it or has very few, all traceable cases then yes I would suggest suspending flights to some of these European countries including the UK might be a very sensible idea.
You would end European, North Atlantic, Trans-Pacific, North & South American, Middle East and Far East air travel.
Still doesn't make sense. If he doesn't have grand designs for the presidency beyond standing aside for someone else later, why is he getting in the way?
Well, he has the profile with older and black voters that someone like Buttigieg or Clinton doesn't, for instance, and the political experience that Michelle Obama doesn't.
I don’t buy that. If he wasn’t standing I’m pretty sure another moderate would have clinched it over Sanders.
I think that's it. Probably would not be running otherwise. And hats off to him. Along with finding a Covid vaccine and a cure for cancer, preventing a 2nd Trump term is the highest and most noble calling that any man or woman can possibly aspire to right now.
Wednesday will clearly be go day. I suspect that they probably knew the increase has been ramping up (although takes 4 days to return the test result and go into the public numbers, the data scientists will know much sooner) and that is why we had Monday presser with a Wednesday one although in the diary.
Two weeks ago the Italian infection rate was similar to ours now:
26 Feb - Italy: 374 9 March - UK: 321
Should other countries suspend flights to the UK now?
5 March - Germany 351 5-March - France 423
Just as important, the numbers in Germany/France are tracking Italy surprisingly well with about a week's lag. The numbers in the UK are tracking those in Germany and France well, with about a 4 day lag.
Although Germany has a higher population, it s not evenly distributed. There is a hotspot in NRW, and considering a reduction in flights in and out of Köln/Bonn and Düsseldorf would be a very good idea. Reducing all travel in those airports to to "absolutely necessary" level.
While I have no doubt the gvt advice on when to take what action is "evidence-based", and said assessment is being made by genuine experts, I'm not sure I like the way the scientific advisors described what they were trying to achieve as "balanced".
Balance is a matter of judgement and priorities, and two reasonable people could set that balance in two different positions especially when there is considerable uncertainty. If the balance is between possibly slowing the virus and preventing unnecessary disruption, personally I'd prefer a bigger dose of unnecessary disruption. But that priority-setting is a matter for political leadership not technocracy.
I don't like the idea that a political decision is being made on where to strike the balance, even if it is being made by default, but then any bad consequences might ultimately be fobbed off onto the scientific advice. Even if not actively blamed and condemned, in years to come might we be hearing today's political leaders say "we acted on the best advice and evidence available at the time, we can't fault the advisors for that, it's a shame what happened next but we didn't know back then what we know now..."?
In particular I still don't feel comfortable that low-cost interventions don't seem to have been made (eg positive suport for working from home, even if not as a must-do-if-possible order yet; stronger travel advice) and I feel very uncomfortable about lack of advice / personnel for returnees at airports (I understand the lack of medical screening as there is good reason to think it would be ineffective, but a lot of returnees seem genuinely confused as to what's going on). I also don't feel very reassured about preparations for the next phase, there isn't much window left in the worst case scenario (the Italian path) for healthcare worker training, PPE supply etc. I hope to be proven wrong but it does undermine confidence and confidence is actually valuable right now.
Disclaimer - I'm in a high-risk group so my personal preference about where the balance should be struck is selfish rather than socially optimal!
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
Two weeks ago the Italian infection rate was similar to ours now:
26 Feb - Italy: 374 9 March - UK: 321
Should other countries suspend flights to the UK now?
If you are a country which genuinely doesn't have it or has very few, all traceable cases then yes I would suggest suspending flights to some of these European countries including the UK might be a very sensible idea.
You would end European, North Atlantic, Trans-Pacific, North & South American, Middle East and Far East air travel.
Temporarily yes.
And before starting on about the economy bear in mind that I am one of those who is at the very forefront of those likely to be out of work as a result of this.
The best thing for everyone from both a health and an economic point of view is to get it dealt with as quickly and aggressively as possible. If we don't then more people die and the economy, in the long term, suffers even more.
The Dow bounce didn’t last long, and it looks like we’ll soon be dicking about around the key 24,000.
Although the Dow is not a sensible index. The S&P500 is much more useful.
Yesterday, the market dropped to 12 month lows. But it is worth remembering that if you bought the index a year ago, then once you include dividends, you wouldn't actually be sitting on a loss.
So we probably shouldn't overstate the scale of this drop.
Just wait.
I don't think we're in disagreement. I'm saying the correction has (so far) been pretty mild.
Interestingly, this is like the opposite of the Global Financial Crisis. There, the US got it first and rapidly implemented the right measures to get it under control. Europe on the other hand argued for five years about whether it was really serious, or whether it was actually a US problem, and basically fucked around, causing tend of millions of people serious hardship.
This time around, Europe's got it first. But they seem to have noticed there's a problem. And they're testing, and implementing measures to "flatten the curve". This time it's the US in full blown denial mode.
I know they have Brexit and Boris Derangement Syndrome, but that is not excuse in a time of crisis.
It's disgraceful, especially if it's done knowingly, but the political campaigners behind the government did kind of open Pandora's box when they did the same in that Kier Starmer clip during the election.
In the same way, the government concerns about fake news sites would be easier to swallow had their campaigning not pushed the boundaries quite so hard (remember FactCheckUK?)
What is good for the goose is good for the gander
It serves them right.
Its not about goose and gander. This isn't the too and fro of partisan politicking, we're not in an election campaign, we're in a healthcare scare and there is no justification at all for misinformation right now.
This isn't a game.
So it was just a game when your side did it to Starmer?
Besides, they did not alter instructions to hospitals and doctors, they just highlighted what we all know anyway - that Boris is a gung-ho, verbal-rambler who may trouble to distinguish his gluteus maximus from his cubitum. That is precisely why it is so believable.
Didn't the edited clip suggest the government policy was to do nothing, and that they were just going to let people die? Yes, that's exactly the sort of message the public want to hear.
Totally irresponsible.
Does it though ? Boris puts "One of the theories is that" before his sentence, which isn't edited out.
It is quite an interesting clip. Johnson implies he did discuss quite seriously whether there was any need to intervene to slow down the progress of the epidemic. Which is good. You should always understand what the alternatives are before making a decision. He also suggests he is in favour of a relatively light touch intervention - "strike a balance", "without taking draconian measures". The key point is that the choice isn't between total lockdown and doing nothing. There is a spectrum of measures that can be taken. Which ones you do is a judgment call.
Yes, and that's a political decision that has to be made by politicians. You can't simply say, "we're following scientific advice" and leave it at that. That's a cop out. Science can determine the options, but politicians have to choose from the available options.
Of course - all advisers give a range of options.
Which is why it's entirely valid (within reason) to comment on the government's choices without calling down cries of 'but the experts...'.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
On topic: I agree that Layla Moran is the obvious choice for the party - although she's not my preferred choice, I'd be happy enough if she got the job. I don't think Ed Davy has any chance at all - the feeling that we can't have another coalition associated leader is gaining strength in the party. I'm on team Wera Hobhouse unless I see anything more impressive from any other candidate. Daisy Cooper is interesting too though... she's maintaining a very high profile on social media and a lot of Lib Dem members will be aware of that.
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who's died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
Well in some cases it will be impossible, but for many they might have an underlying health condition, but it is currently well managed by medication and hence why they weren't in hospital at the time.
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
From a morbidity point of view, does it matter?
Right now, the main thing we care about is slowing the transmission as much as possible. There isn't a whole lot we can do about the mortality rate (although it would obviously be nice to understand it a bit better). So figuring out how and how fast it's spreading is the key.
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
Autopsy I assume. I also assume that "died partly of coronavirus" is a valid diagnosis.
The Dow bounce didn’t last long, and it looks like we’ll soon be dicking about around the key 24,000.
Although the Dow is not a sensible index. The S&P500 is much more useful.
Yesterday, the market dropped to 12 month lows. But it is worth remembering that if you bought the index a year ago, then once you include dividends, you wouldn't actually be sitting on a loss.
So we probably shouldn't overstate the scale of this drop.
Just wait.
I don't think we're in disagreement. I'm saying the correction has (so far) been pretty mild.
Interestingly, this is like the opposite of the Global Financial Crisis. There, the US got it first and rapidly implemented the right measures to get it under control. Europe on the other hand argued for five years about whether it was really serious, or whether it was actually a US problem, and basically fucked around, causing tend of millions of people serious hardship.
This time around, Europe's got it first. But they seem to have noticed there's a problem. And they're testing, and implementing measures to "flatten the curve". This time it's the US in full blown denial mode.
The case that struck me the most was the guy who’d returned from travelling and presented to a US hospital with flu symptoms and a temperature of 100, and was willing to pay for a test, but was turned away and told to go home, because the qualifying temperature was 100.4.
Two weeks ago the Italian infection rate was similar to ours now:
26 Feb - Italy: 374 9 March - UK: 321
Should other countries suspend flights to the UK now?
It's not an absolutely identical judgement, due the different clustering profiles in the two countries. That said, it is probably not so radically different.
While I have no doubt the gvt advice on when to take what action is "evidence-based", and said assessment is being made by genuine experts, I'm not sure I like the way the scientific advisors described what they were trying to achieve as "balanced".
Balance is a matter of judgement and priorities, and two reasonable people could set that balance in two different positions especially when there is considerable uncertainty. If the balance is between possibly slowing the virus and preventing unnecessary disruption, personally I'd prefer a bigger dose of unnecessary disruption. But that priority-setting is a matter for political leadership not technocracy.
I don't like the idea that a political decision is being made on where to strike the balance, even if it is being made by default, but then any bad consequences might ultimately be fobbed off onto the scientific advice. Even if not actively blamed and condemned, in years to come might we be hearing today's political leaders say "we acted on the best advice and evidence available at the time, we can't fault the advisors for that, it's a shame what happened next but we didn't know back then what we know now..."?
In particular I still don't feel comfortable that low-cost interventions don't seem to have been made (eg positive suport for working from home, even if not as a must-do-if-possible order yet; stronger travel advice) and I feel very uncomfortable about lack of advice / personnel for returnees at airports (I understand the lack of medical screening as there is good reason to think it would be ineffective, but a lot of returnees seem genuinely confused as to what's going on). I also don't feel very reassured about preparations for the next phase, there isn't much window left in the worst case scenario (the Italian path) for healthcare worker training, PPE supply etc. I hope to be proven wrong but it does undermine confidence and confidence is actually valuable right now.
Disclaimer - I'm in a high-risk group so my personal preference about where the balance should be struck is selfish rather than socially optimal!
I think it is worth bearing in mind that the 'balance' being referred to might be a very specific part of their expertise.
Someone mentioned yesterday that epidemiologists have to be as much experts of human behaviour as they do on viral behaviour. As such they may well be making 'balanced' decisions or recommendations based on expected human responses which might influence the spread. The classic case I have heard repeated a number of times over the last week is that if you call for restrictions too early then by the time the peak does actually appear people have got bored of them or started to question them and so ignore them. Or they may be so desperate because of needing to work etc that they will take risks.
I am not an epidemiologist so have no idea about the relative value of these models and assumptions but I do understand why they talk about 'balance' in this way.
That said on many of your other points I am in full agreement. And I am more of the 'shut everything' view which is why it is probably a good job I am not making these decisions.
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
Autopsy I assume. I also assume that "died partly of coronavirus" is a valid diagnosis.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
Why can't both be the cause? The death certificate will likely list both.
That is a superb line. Kind of along the lines of 'lend me your vote' which has been used by various politicians in the past.
I honestly can't work out if it's an absolutely superb line, possibly the best single sentence statement by a campaigning politician in the last 30 years, or an absolute blunder of the worst order.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Don't they have a separate (better) section of the graveyard reserved for Gold Card holders?
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who's died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
Well in some cases it will be impossible, but for many they might have an underlying health condition, but it is currently well managed by medication and hence why they weren't in hospital at the time.
Some will be obvious, some will be indeterminate. When all is said and done, the excess mortality rate will be calculated comparing deaths that happen versus those that would have been expected.
As healthcare systems fail, there will also be a spike in deaths unrelated to coronavirus.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
(BBC) On Monday, health officials said people who showed "even minor" signs of respiratory tract infections or a fever would - within the next 14 days - be told to self-isolate for a week in an effort to tackle the outbreak.
Why not now ?
Because its still common cold season so it would be too many people at the moment who all just have the common cold, so the message would end up being ignored, which would be counter-productive.
In a couple of weeks common colds will be much, much less common so it can be listened to and obeyed.
Hayfever soon. I fear us missing out on a good outcome in the government's pursuit of perfection.
Grass pollen season doesn't begin for a couple more months.
I start with the tree pollen which can be this early - but near end of the month. Bad year I can sneeze from march/easter till september.
We have a deadly disease with no cure sweeping the world and we are arguing over just how many genders there are...Fiddling while Rome burns stuff.
So, did she bring it up or did Piers?
I meant the interaction in general. Personally if I was a politician at the moment, I wouldn't be interested in talking about anything else. If Piers start being a twat, I would say hey we have a virus sweeping the world, there are times and places for this discussion, now isn't it.
Just on R4 that Italian government has advised that all tourists returning from anywhere in Italy should self-isolate in their home country for two weeks.
Barnesian?
Which would seem sensible.
I note Hancock was asked directly about this yesterday, and completely avoided (or completely missed the point of) the question with some crap about temperature testing not being diagnostic...
Will Austria allow Barnesian across the border to catch his flight in Innsbruck? If I were Barnesian I would have fleed Italy by now and spent the last few days of my skiing holiday in Austria. Maybe he has.
From the Guardian: "“Austrian travellers are urgently advised to return to Austria,” the foreign ministry said on its website on Tuesday [Today]. So at the moment it looks like it should be possible.
Oh dear I spoke too soon! The latest from the Guardian: Austria is taking drastic measures in response to the nationwide lockdown in its southern neighbour Italy.
The chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, today announced an entry ban for people entering Austria from Italy by car, train or plane, unless they can provide a doctor’s certificate. Controls will be imposed along the border between the two countries.
Just on R4 that Italian government has advised that all tourists returning from anywhere in Italy should self-isolate in their home country for two weeks.
Barnesian?
Which would seem sensible.
I note Hancock was asked directly about this yesterday, and completely avoided (or completely missed the point of) the question with some crap about temperature testing not being diagnostic...
Will Austria allow Barnesian across the border to catch his flight in Innsbruck? If I were Barnesian I would have fleed Italy by now and spent the last few days of my skiing holiday in Austria. Maybe he has.
From the Guardian: "“Austrian travellers are urgently advised to return to Austria,” the foreign ministry said on its website on Tuesday [Today]. So at the moment it looks like it should be possible.
Oh dear I spoke too soon! The latest from the Guardian: Austria is taking drastic measures in response to the nationwide lockdown in its southern neighbour Italy.
The chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, today announced an entry ban for people entering Austria from Italy by car, train or plane, unless they can provide a doctor’s certificate. Controls will be imposed along the border between the two countries.
Barnesian better get skiing for the border pronto....
I think it is worth bearing in mind that the 'balance' being referred to might be a very specific part of their expertise.
Someone mentioned yesterday that epidemiologists have to be as much experts of human behaviour as they do on viral behaviour. As such they may well be making 'balanced' decisions or recommendations based on expected human responses which might influence the spread. The classic case I have heard repeated a number of times over the last week is that if you call for restrictions too early then by the time the peak does actually appear people have got bored of them or started to question them and so ignore them. Or they may be so desperate because of needing to work etc that they will take risks.
I am not an epidemiologist so have no idea about the relative value of these models and assumptions but I do understand why they talk about 'balance' in this way.
That said on many of your other points I am in full agreement. And I am more of the 'shut everything' view which is why it is probably a good job I am not making these decisions.
Yes I actually put in a paragraph about that then deleted it for length reasons! In short some interventions may be counterproductive but working out which will not be easy (experts must try to figure this out from the evidence but this will be their best guess, not a certainty). On the other hand, from the way they spoke and similar language from HMG, it does seem to me they're balancing things up against "something". It doesn't seem their response is based on priority 1 beat coronavirus, priority 2 beat coronavirus, priority 3 really beat coronavirus,..., priority 10 definitely make sure you beat coronavirus. And yes I know governments have other things on their plate too, but I would feel happier if beating coronavirus was their overwhelming priority. Because if it isn't now, it looks like it blooming well will be in a month or so, and nobody will be able to duck the issue.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
Just cash your points in for Amazon vouchers, and treat it as cashback.
As Emily Maitlis said on Newsnight last night, how do we know the difference between someone who died of coronavirus and someone who died with coronavirus?
Autopsy I assume. I also assume that "died partly of coronavirus" is a valid diagnosis.
Still doesn't make sense. If he doesn't have grand designs for the presidency beyond standing aside for someone else later, why is he getting in the way?
Well, he has the profile with older and black voters that someone like Buttigieg or Clinton doesn't, for instance, and the political experience that Michelle Obama doesn't.
I don’t buy that. If he wasn’t standing I’m pretty sure another moderate would have clinched it over Sanders.
I'm not sure about that. The party is very divided and beyond Sanders none of the other candidates have distinguished themselves.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
BA should award posthumous Gold for Life status to any victims.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
So past 2 days, increase of 17% each day...compared to 30-40% daily increases across the previous week.
That should be good news, but I think it is concerning...are we now not testing enough people? Or are we going to get the explosion in numbers in the next 2-3 days?
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
BA should award posthumous Gold for Life status to any victims.
So past 2 days, increase of 17% each day...compared to 30-40% daily increases across the previous week.
That should be good news, but I think it is concerning...are we now not testing enough people? Or are we going to get the explosion in numbers in the next 2-3 days?
Did they post the number negative yesterday? You can see if the test rate is increasing in line with detection.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
BA should award posthumous Gold for Life status to any victims.
Do they fly down there, then?
Perhaps your widow would get it. A small crumb of comfort.
What's that increase of 54? I think we can see why the reaction of the government on Monday now.
Let's see what tomorrow brings. When Italy had a similar number of cases (26 Feb, 374), the next day it put on an additional 154 cases - the preceding day it had put on 145 - so we may be slower than Italy - but that depends how many tests they were doing.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
BA should award posthumous Gold for Life status to any victims.
Do they fly down there, then?
Perhaps your widow would get it. A small crumb of comfort.
Something from the Lancet that I think anyone should read before continuing to discuss pros/cons of what we "should" be doing...
How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? Roy M Anderson, Hans Heesterbeek, Don Klinkenberg, T Déirdre Hollingsworth. Published March 09, 2020
This is a pretty much up-to-date must-read on mitigation measures. Anderson (who's at Imperial, for those who are partisan about these things) is a legend in the field of infectious disease modelling.
But interestingly, I don't think anyone who's been following PB closely over the past few days will find much new in it. Perhaps an indication of just how tricky the contact-tracing is? Indication of what the experts really think (as distinct from commentariat froth) and what uncertainties they face? Definitely the better comments below-the-line on PB have maintained a high quality of discussion and I don't think there's much here that's been missed.
So past 2 days, increase of 17% each day...compared to 30-40% daily increases across the previous week.
That should be good news, but I think it is concerning...are we now not testing enough people? Or are we going to get the explosion in numbers in the next 2-3 days?
Did they post the number negative yesterday? You can see if the test rate is increasing in line with detection.
Cumulative total tests past 4 days.
21461 23513 24960 26261
So tests past 3 days
2052 1447 1301
Surely we should be testing more people every day, not less? I presume weekend effect.
It's a growing concern. I was on course for Gold this year
Emirates Skywards have already said that they're suspending status downgrades indefinitely, apparently it was the most common question to their call centre as this all kicked off a few weeks ago.
I've reconciled myself to the fact that I'm losing my BA Gold Status this year.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
If you’re in bed with Coronavirus I would be amazed if you are worrying about your frequent flyer status. Even Sean wouldn’t sink that far.
Of course Sean wouldn't care, he's going to be gold status anyway.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
BA should award posthumous Gold for Life status to any victims.
So past 2 days, increase of 17% each day...compared to 30-40% daily increases across the previous week.
That should be good news, but I think it is concerning...are we now not testing enough people? Or are we going to get the explosion in numbers in the next 2-3 days?
Or could we hope the disease is slowing, as it appears to be in the original 11 quarantined Italian towns ?
Comments
They may only be in hospital right at the end
Secondly it may well be that they died with the coronavirus rather because of the coronavirus.
a) Well known or b) richer than Croesus.
However, it needs to be realistic about Europe (rejoining is no longer on the agenda);
Stay the hell away from woke issues;
Recognise the the key issues are around how those under the age of 65, and not independently wealthy can get ahead.
They ought to have called for the scrapping of tuition fees in the last election, because it is a lingering contaminant. They *still* need to do this.
Regarding the specifics of Italy. We could have been faster and more aggressive with issuing guidance not to travel there. Fairly simple stuff really.
I have zero interest in engaging with you further.
https://twitter.com/nytimesworld/status/1237367431099801601
Yesterday, the market dropped to 12 month lows. But it is worth remembering that if you bought the index a year ago, then once you include dividends, you wouldn't actually be sitting on a loss.
So we probably shouldn't overstate the scale of this drop.
(Also, using the Schiller Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings Ratio, the stock market is pretty expensive: https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe
Indeed, the S&P500 could drop by half and the price would still only look reasonable.)
https://xkcd.com/605/
How many is that today so far? What's the record?
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1237377690820382720?s=20
Coronavirus detected at Apple's European HQ in Ireland
Gotta wait for markets to close?
5-March - France 423
Just as important, the numbers in Germany/France are tracking Italy surprisingly well with about a week's lag. The numbers in the UK are tracking those in Germany and France well, with about a 4 day lag.
Although Germany has a higher population, it s not evenly distributed. There is a hotspot in NRW, and considering a reduction in flights in and out of Köln/Bonn and Düsseldorf would be a very good idea. Reducing all travel in those airports to to "absolutely necessary" level.
Balance is a matter of judgement and priorities, and two reasonable people could set that balance in two different positions especially when there is considerable uncertainty. If the balance is between possibly slowing the virus and preventing unnecessary disruption, personally I'd prefer a bigger dose of unnecessary disruption. But that priority-setting is a matter for political leadership not technocracy.
I don't like the idea that a political decision is being made on where to strike the balance, even if it is being made by default, but then any bad consequences might ultimately be fobbed off onto the scientific advice. Even if not actively blamed and condemned, in years to come might we be hearing today's political leaders say "we acted on the best advice and evidence available at the time, we can't fault the advisors for that, it's a shame what happened next but we didn't know back then what we know now..."?
In particular I still don't feel comfortable that low-cost interventions don't seem to have been made (eg positive suport for working from home, even if not as a must-do-if-possible order yet; stronger travel advice) and I feel very uncomfortable about lack of advice / personnel for returnees at airports (I understand the lack of medical screening as there is good reason to think it would be ineffective, but a lot of returnees seem genuinely confused as to what's going on). I also don't feel very reassured about preparations for the next phase, there isn't much window left in the worst case scenario (the Italian path) for healthcare worker training, PPE supply etc. I hope to be proven wrong but it does undermine confidence and confidence is actually valuable right now.
Disclaimer - I'm in a high-risk group so my personal preference about where the balance should be struck is selfish rather than socially optimal!
And before starting on about the economy bear in mind that I am one of those who is at the very forefront of those likely to be out of work as a result of this.
The best thing for everyone from both a health and an economic point of view is to get it dealt with as quickly and aggressively as possible. If we don't then more people die and the economy, in the long term, suffers even more.
Interestingly, this is like the opposite of the Global Financial Crisis. There, the US got it first and rapidly implemented the right measures to get it under control. Europe on the other hand argued for five years about whether it was really serious, or whether it was actually a US problem, and basically fucked around, causing tend of millions of people serious hardship.
This time around, Europe's got it first. But they seem to have noticed there's a problem. And they're testing, and implementing measures to "flatten the curve". This time it's the US in full blown denial mode.
Which is why it's entirely valid (within reason) to comment on the government's choices without calling down cries of 'but the experts...'.
I'll be bloody pissed if I lose it *and* get Coronavirus.
Right now, the main thing we care about is slowing the transmission as much as possible. There isn't a whole lot we can do about the mortality rate (although it would obviously be nice to understand it a bit better). So figuring out how and how fast it's spreading is the key.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1237377697917140992
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1237378225417961472
Piers, on the other hand, needs to be sent to Qom to help in the relief efforts.
Someone mentioned yesterday that epidemiologists have to be as much experts of human behaviour as they do on viral behaviour. As such they may well be making 'balanced' decisions or recommendations based on expected human responses which might influence the spread. The classic case I have heard repeated a number of times over the last week is that if you call for restrictions too early then by the time the peak does actually appear people have got bored of them or started to question them and so ignore them. Or they may be so desperate because of needing to work etc that they will take risks.
I am not an epidemiologist so have no idea about the relative value of these models and assumptions but I do understand why they talk about 'balance' in this way.
That said on many of your other points I am in full agreement. And I am more of the 'shut everything' view which is why it is probably a good job I am not making these decisions.
https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1237381713552080897?s=20
*coughs*
As healthcare systems fail, there will also be a spike in deaths unrelated to coronavirus.
For those of us who are going to miss out on a year of Gold because of this damn virus, it's a much bigger problem!
1,301 tests, an extra 54 cases
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1237368448533004288
The latest from the Guardian:
Austria is taking drastic measures in response to the nationwide lockdown in its southern neighbour Italy.
The chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, today announced an entry ban for people entering Austria from Italy by car, train or plane, unless they can provide a doctor’s certificate. Controls will be imposed along the border between the two countries.
That should be good news, but I think it is concerning...are we now not testing enough people? Or are we going to get the explosion in numbers in the next 2-3 days?
Diversity in action
21461
23513
24960
26261
So tests past 3 days
2052
1447
1301
Surely we should be testing more people every day, not less? I presume weekend effect.
It's good to hope.