Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Cowling examines Cobyn’s claim that LAB would have won G

124678

Comments

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    Has that shipment of PPE from Turkey arrived?

    As if it was ever going to arrive.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Sandpit, by 'ads' I meant with the Youtuber directly not via Youtube (so the Youtuber in question might promote a VPN, say).

    Mr. Urquhart, aye, I've heard for a while Youtube was all about family channels, and has recently reversed that.

    Patreon and the like does offer some greater degree of stability (although I've heard Patreon itself might be struggling a bit).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    South African Airways and Virgin Australia are also in serious trouble, talk of administration today for both of these. Airline industry not surprisingly on its knees.
    https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1252187021990334464?s=21
    I'll put away the world's smallest violin for now to note this raises the interesting question: how should the government decide which businesses to prop up and which to let go, or how to set criteria for access to government support? I expect a lot of thought is being given to this just now.
    Branson is asking for a loan:

    Together with the team at Virgin Atlantic, we will do everything we can to keep the airline going – but we will need government support to achieve that in the face of the severe uncertainty surrounding travel today and not knowing how long the planes will be grounded for. This would be in the form of a commercial loan – it wouldn’t be free money and the airline would pay it back (as easyJet will do for the £600m loan the government recently gave them).

    https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/open-letter-virgin-employees

    While Branson lives abroad Virgin Atlantic is UK tax domiciled.
    He says that the loan would be on "commercial terms".

    May be we should get a bank to quote on the loan before we consider offering pricing?
    Won’t Virgin Money give him a loan? ;)
    There are rules about bankers self-dealing

    (although, "Virgin Money" is really a rebranded Clydesdale - Branson doesn't have much influence there any more)
    I thought it was Northern Rock ...
    Originally, yes, but CYBG (Clydesdale + Yorkshire) bought it last year

    https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/34606/cybg-to-relaunch-as-virgin-money
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Divvie, I mentioned the mass shooting earlier.

    I think half-hour sections of news with nothing on ye olde plague would be a wise move on the news front.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    I'm reading a very good book about Alfred.

    Viking incursions make a welcome change from plague
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,869

    Endillion said:

    Ooh, NHS England has started graphing their daily deaths reporting by day of death. First change to the format in a while.

    429 reported today in England. Lowest for ages, but looks to be significant weekend reporting delay. I suspect that tomorrow is going to see reports well over a thousand due to the backlog being released. If not, then we'll finally have some evidence that we're over the peak.

    Current position for the last three days is 85, 328, 446 (going backwards, so Apr 19/18/17). Two weeks ago, the equivalent positions were 69, 285, 350. Extrapolating, I'd guess we're still running at 700 per day in England, which is where we've been pretty much since the start of April.

    If we do go over the 1,000, then that is shit politics. Why implement the change to make to appear things are getting no better/maybe worse?

    Which makes me think, maybe they know we won't top the 1,000. And the new reporting metric will then show a significant daily lowering of deaths. Maybe?
    To be clear, the change is they've added a graph to the front page of the file. It makes no difference to the numbers at all.

    I have no explanation as to why we have a reporting delay this week (and two weeks ago) when had no discernible impact of the Bank Holiday weekend, but there you go.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450
    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    eristdoof said:

    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eadric said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    Thanks for the thread but who cares what the delusional old bat thinks anymore? Even Labour are going to airbrush the embarrassment of his leadership from their collective memory as fast as possible.

    The Corbynites haven’t gone away you know.

    If Starmer screws up Richard Burgon is waiting in the wings.

    Remember oppositions don’t win general elections, governments lose them.

    If Johnson messes up the response Covid-19 we could see PM Burgon.

    https://twitter.com/richardburgon/status/1252168331618123776?s=21
    "China - 3"

    Rrrright
    Missing a couple of zeros there at least.
    So you reckon the case fatality rate in China was 300%?

    The odd thing is that people come out with this kind of thing and then whine when they are described as morons!
    I was partly joking, but what are you talking about? not 300%, 300 per million i.e. just a bit higher than the UK.
    My apologies. The official fatality rate in China is now 5.5%.

    You think it should be 550%, apparently.
    You've doubled down on this, that's hilarious! He said nothing of the kind, and missing that once was funny, but twice?
    Someone else with a reading difficulty. You didn't understand that "Missing a couple of zeros" meant it should be multiplied by 100?

    Were you away the week you should have done arithmetic at school?
    Please don't go insulting people who are trying to point out your mistake.
    The twitter figure was for deaths per million, not the case fatality rate as you claimed. On top of that you say that 3 missing a couple of zeros is 300%.
    3 missing no zeros is 300%. And then you have the temerity to suggest that kle4 was absent for the "one week" that he should have been learning arithmetic.
    No, you're hopelessly confused. The suggestion was that the Chinese death numbers needed to be larger by a factor of 100. What I pointed out what that that would mean a fatality rate of 300%. I was wrong - the current fatality rate in China is 5.5%, not 3% - it would be 550%.

    I don't know whether you understand, but it's not possible for the fatality rate to be larger than 100%, because that would mean the disease had killed more people than it had infected!

    If you can't follow these basic calculations, you should considering just shutting up.
    You are embarrassing yourself. If he proposed a x100 uplift in the number of deaths, you can probably conclude that he would posit an uplift in the number of cases.
    No - I can't conclude anything.

    It's anyone's guess what may or may not be in his head. There's no evidence for any of it. If you think his vapourings are of any value, take it up with him. It's certainly not up to me to make sense of his nonsense.

    This used to be a site where critical thinking was encouraged, I think. These days, people seem eager to swallow any drivel that's posted here, and to attack anyone questioning it. Bizarre.
    Yes, you can. I doubt anyone would suggest that the death rate is underestimated by a factor of 10 or 100 yet argue the case rate is not the same. You yourself have pointed out how illogical that would be. Therefore the most reasonable explanation is that they thought both the death rate and the case rate were overestimated. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time accepting that?
    Who knows what they were assuming? I repeat - if you want to know that, ask them, not me! I don't know why you are finding that so difficult to understand.

    But I did ask you - if you disregard the Chinese figures - what on earth you are assuming about the fatality rate of this disease? 10%? 20%? Not a clue?

    Please do explain.
    I'm just applying some critical thinking. If someone is assuming that the death rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported, it is likely that they also assume the case rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported.
    You didn't answer my question.

    What do you think the fatality rate is, and on what basis?
    What's that got to do with anything?.
    You really don't understand?

    You don't understand that our estimates of the fatality rate are primarily based on data from China? And - as you've just demonstrated - if the data from China are disgregarded, you don't have the slightest clue what the fatality rate of this disease is?

    And not only that, but you don't have the slightest clue how fast it spreads - because our estimates of the R number are also primarily based on Chinese data? So if you disregard the Chinese data, you don't have a clue about that either?

    You seem to be one of those people who pontificate endlessly, without having the slighest clue about what any of your assumptions are based on.
    Ah, so now we are onto deflection.

    Nice trimming of my post to remove the context.
    You are completely unable to answer. No surprise.
    I'm sorry, but we were discussing your claim that someone was stating a 550% mortality rate for the Chinese figures. Your questions have nothing to do with that, so I can only assume it is deflection.
    Assume what you like, but please don't complain if I consider you a complete mopron!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Agreed, the only reason Corbyn did so well in 2017 was he kept Leavers and Remainers in his tent by promising to deliver Brexit while opposing hard Brexit and due to May's terrible campaign and the dementia tax.

    By 2019 May had gone, Boris ran a more populist campaign, Leavers deserted Labour for the Tories after Corbyn failed to support Brexit and some Remainers switched from Labour to the LDs after Corbyn refused to commit hard enough to stop Brexit

    Spot on analysis. Brexit flattered Lab in 2017 but cost them big in 2019.

    Little quibble though -

    It does not follow from this that having some of his MPs and key figures in the party machine working actively against him did not cost seats in 2017. It could well have done. Probably did.
    Traditional voters who stuck by Labour in 2017 did so in large part because they were supporting their well regarded Labour MP, who they had been voting for long before Corbyn arrived on the scene. The well publicised hostility of local Labour MPs to Corbyn didn't prevent people voting for such MPs in their constituencies. Yet had Labour been perceived to be at the races in that campaign, such that there was a genuine prospect of Corbyn becoming MP, many would have run a mile.

    In 2019 we had politically motivated targeting of unwinnable seats by the Corbyn dominated party machine, while seats that should have been defended were ignored. That worked out well, didn't it, with Labour ending up losing far more seats than the polls had predicted.
    So those Labour MPs and officials working against Corbyn were actually on the sly working FOR him.

    First he had to be thought a surefire loser to sucker Mrs May into calling the election. Then - during the election itself - he had to continue to look like a surefire loser so as to get people who couldn't stand him to vote Labour knowing that they hadn't got a cat's chance in hell of winning.

    It is possible, I suppose.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,591
    edited April 2020

    Endillion said:

    Ooh, NHS England has started graphing their daily deaths reporting by day of death. First change to the format in a while.

    429 reported today in England. Lowest for ages, but looks to be significant weekend reporting delay. I suspect that tomorrow is going to see reports well over a thousand due to the backlog being released. If not, then we'll finally have some evidence that we're over the peak.

    Current position for the last three days is 85, 328, 446 (going backwards, so Apr 19/18/17). Two weeks ago, the equivalent positions were 69, 285, 350. Extrapolating, I'd guess we're still running at 700 per day in England, which is where we've been pretty much since the start of April.

    If we do go over the 1,000, then that is shit politics. Why implement the change to make to appear things are getting no better/maybe worse?

    Which makes me think, maybe they know we won't top the 1,000. And the new reporting metric will then show a significant daily lowering of deaths. Maybe?
    It's not a major change to the format, just prominence. The figures by date of death are regularly posted here and you can follow them on Twitter already (the very helpful @cricketwyvern)

    I don't quite agree with Endillion's interpretation, though. Yesterday and today are the first real evidence of green shoots we've had, as opposed to a plateau. Even recording quibbles are unlikely to completely make up for that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    edited April 2020
    Captain Tom just about to go through £27m......

    ...and he's done it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    eristdoof said:

    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eadric said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    Thanks for the thread but who cares what the delusional old bat thinks anymore? Even Labour are going to airbrush the embarrassment of his leadership from their collective memory as fast as possible.

    The Corbynites haven’t gone away you know.

    If Starmer screws up Richard Burgon is waiting in the wings.

    Remember oppositions don’t win general elections, governments lose them.

    If Johnson messes up the response Covid-19 we could see PM Burgon.

    https://twitter.com/richardburgon/status/1252168331618123776?s=21
    "China - 3"

    Rrrright
    Missing a couple of zeros there at least.
    So you reckon the case fatality rate in China was 300%?

    The odd thing is that people come out with this kind of thing and then whine when they are described as morons!
    I was partly joking, but what are you talking about? not 300%, 300 per million i.e. just a bit higher than the UK.
    My apologies. The official fatality rate in China is now 5.5%.

    You think it should be 550%, apparently.
    You've doubled down on this, that's hilarious! He said nothing of the kind, and missing that once was funny, but twice?
    Someone else with a reading difficulty. You didn't understand that "Missing a couple of zeros" meant it should be multiplied by 100?

    Were you away the week you should have done arithmetic at school?
    Please don't go insulting people who are trying to point out your mistake.
    The twitter figure was for deaths per million, not the case fatality rate as you claimed. On top of that you say that 3 missing a couple of zeros is 300%.
    3 missing no zeros is 300%. And then you have the temerity to suggest that kle4 was absent for the "one week" that he should have been learning arithmetic.
    No, you're hopelessly confused. The suggestion was that the Chinese death numbers needed to be larger by a factor of 100. What I pointed out what that that would mean a fatality rate of 300%. I was wrong - the current fatality rate in China is 5.5%, not 3% - it would be 550%.

    I don't know whether you understand, but it's not possible for the fatality rate to be larger than 100%, because that would mean the disease had killed more people than it had infected!

    If you can't follow these basic calculations, you should considering just shutting up.
    You are embarrassing yourself. If he proposed a x100 uplift in the number of deaths, you can probably conclude that he would posit an uplift in the number of cases.
    No - I can't conclude anything.

    It's anyone's guess what may or may not be in his head. There's no evidence for any of it. If you think his vapourings are of any value, take it up with him. It's certainly not up to me to make sense of his nonsense.

    This used to be a site where critical thinking was encouraged, I think. These days, people seem eager to swallow any drivel that's posted here, and to attack anyone questioning it. Bizarre.
    Yes, you can. I doubt anyone would suggest that the death rate is underestimated by a factor of 10 or 100 yet argue the case rate is not the same. You yourself have pointed out how illogical that would be. Therefore the most reasonable explanation is that they thought both the death rate and the case rate were overestimated. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time accepting that?
    Who knows what they were assuming? I repeat - if you want to know that, ask them, not me! I don't know why you are finding that so difficult to understand.

    But I did ask you - if you disregard the Chinese figures - what on earth you are assuming about the fatality rate of this disease? 10%? 20%? Not a clue?

    Please do explain.
    I'm just applying some critical thinking. If someone is assuming that the death rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported, it is likely that they also assume the case rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported.
    You didn't answer my question.

    What do you think the fatality rate is, and on what basis?
    What's that got to do with anything?.
    You really don't understand?

    You don't understand that our estimates of the fatality rate are primarily based on data from China? And - as you've just demonstrated - if the data from China are disgregarded, you don't have the slightest clue what the fatality rate of this disease is?

    And not only that, but you don't have the slightest clue how fast it spreads - because our estimates of the R number are also primarily based on Chinese data? So if you disregard the Chinese data, you don't have a clue about that either?

    You seem to be one of those people who pontificate endlessly, without having the slighest clue about what any of your assumptions are based on.
    Ah, so now we are onto deflection.

    Nice trimming of my post to remove the context.
    You are completely unable to answer. No surprise.
    I'm sorry, but we were discussing your claim that someone was stating a 550% mortality rate for the Chinese figures. Your questions have nothing to do with that, so I can only assume it is deflection.
    Assume what you like, but please don't complain if I consider you a complete mopron!
    Insults add nothing to this site.

    You are entitled to your private opinion, but don't pollute others' reading with them
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    eristdoof said:

    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eadric said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    Thanks for the thread but who cares what the delusional old bat thinks anymore? Even Labour are going to airbrush the embarrassment of his leadership from their collective memory as fast as possible.

    The Corbynites haven’t gone away you know.

    If Starmer screws up Richard Burgon is waiting in the wings.

    Remember oppositions don’t win general elections, governments lose them.

    If Johnson messes up the response Covid-19 we could see PM Burgon.

    https://twitter.com/richardburgon/status/1252168331618123776?s=21
    "China - 3"

    Rrrright
    Missing a couple of zeros there at least.
    So you reckon the case fatality rate in China was 300%?

    The odd thing is that people come out with this kind of thing and then whine when they are described as morons!
    I was partly joking, but what are you talking about? not 300%, 300 per million i.e. just a bit higher than the UK.
    My apologies. The official fatality rate in China is now 5.5%.

    You think it should be 550%, apparently.
    You've doubled down on this, that's hilarious! He said nothing of the kind, and missing that once was funny, but twice?
    Someone else with a reading difficulty. You didn't understand that "Missing a couple of zeros" meant it should be multiplied by 100?

    Were you away the week you should have done arithmetic at school?
    Please don't go insulting people who are trying to point out your mistake.
    The twitter figure was for deaths per million, not the case fatality rate as you claimed. On top of that you say that 3 missing a couple of zeros is 300%.
    3 missing no zeros is 300%. And then you have the temerity to suggest that kle4 was absent for the "one week" that he should have been learning arithmetic.
    No, you're hopelessly confused. The suggestion was that the Chinese death numbers needed to be larger by a factor of 100. What I pointed out what that that would mean a fatality rate of 300%. I was wrong - the current fatality rate in China is 5.5%, not 3% - it would be 550%.

    I don't know whether you understand, but it's not possible for the fatality rate to be larger than 100%, because that would mean the disease had killed more people than it had infected!

    If you can't follow these basic calculations, you should considering just shutting up.
    You are embarrassing yourself. If he proposed a x100 uplift in the number of deaths, you can probably conclude that he would posit an uplift in the number of cases.
    No - I can't conclude anything.

    It's anyone's guess what may or may not be in his head. There's no evidence for any of it. If you think his vapourings are of any value, take it up with him. It's certainly not up to me to make sense of his nonsense.

    This used to be a site where critical thinking was encouraged, I think. These days, people seem eager to swallow any drivel that's posted here, and to attack anyone questioning it. Bizarre.
    Yes, you can. I doubt anyone would suggest that the death rate is underestimated by a factor of 10 or 100 yet argue the case rate is not the same. You yourself have pointed out how illogical that would be. Therefore the most reasonable explanation is that they thought both the death rate and the case rate were overestimated. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time accepting that?
    Who knows what they were assuming? I repeat - if you want to know that, ask them, not me! I don't know why you are finding that so difficult to understand.

    But I did ask you - if you disregard the Chinese figures - what on earth you are assuming about the fatality rate of this disease? 10%? 20%? Not a clue?

    Please do explain.
    I'm just applying some critical thinking. If someone is assuming that the death rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported, it is likely that they also assume the case rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported.
    You didn't answer my question.

    What do you think the fatality rate is, and on what basis?
    What's that got to do with anything?.
    You really don't understand?

    You don't understand that our estimates of the fatality rate are primarily based on data from China? And - as you've just demonstrated - if the data from China are disgregarded, you don't have the slightest clue what the fatality rate of this disease is?

    And not only that, but you don't have the slightest clue how fast it spreads - because our estimates of the R number are also primarily based on Chinese data? So if you disregard the Chinese data, you don't have a clue about that either?

    You seem to be one of those people who pontificate endlessly, without having the slighest clue about what any of your assumptions are based on.
    Ah, so now we are onto deflection.

    Nice trimming of my post to remove the context.
    You are completely unable to answer. No surprise.
    I'm sorry, but we were discussing your claim that someone was stating a 550% mortality rate for the Chinese figures. Your questions have nothing to do with that, so I can only assume it is deflection.
    Assume what you like, but please don't complain if I consider you a complete mopron!
    Beautifully put.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    RobD said:

    Chris said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    eristdoof said:

    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    eadric said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    Thanks for the thread but who cares what the delusional old bat thinks anymore? Even Labour are going to airbrush the embarrassment of his leadership from their collective memory as fast as possible.

    The Corbynites haven’t gone away you know.

    If Starmer screws up Richard Burgon is waiting in the wings.

    Remember oppositions don’t win general elections, governments lose them.

    If Johnson messes up the response Covid-19 we could see PM Burgon.

    https://twitter.com/richardburgon/status/1252168331618123776?s=21
    "China - 3"

    Rrrright
    Missing a couple of zeros there at least.
    So you reckon the case fatality rate in China was 300%?

    The odd thing is that people come out with this kind of thing and then whine when they are described as morons!
    I was partly joking, but what are you talking about? not 300%, 300 per million i.e. just a bit higher than the UK.
    My apologies. The official fatality rate in China is now 5.5%.

    You think it should be 550%, apparently.
    You've doubled down on this, that's hilarious! He said nothing of the kind, and missing that once was funny, but twice?
    Someone else with a reading difficulty. You didn't understand that "Missing a couple of zeros" meant it should be multiplied by 100?

    Were you away the week you should have done arithmetic at school?
    Please don't go insulting people who are trying to point out your mistake.
    The twitter figure was for deaths per million, not the case fatality rate as you claimed. On top of that you say that 3 missing a couple of zeros is 300%.
    3 missing no zeros is 300%. And then you have the temerity to suggest that kle4 was absent for the "one week" that he should have been learning arithmetic.
    No, you're hopelessly confused. The suggestion was that the Chinese death numbers needed to be larger by a factor of 100. What I pointed out what that that would mean a fatality rate of 300%. I was wrong - the current fatality rate in China is 5.5%, not 3% - it would be 550%.

    I don't know whether you understand, but it's not possible for the fatality rate to be larger than 100%, because that would mean the disease had killed more people than it had infected!

    If you can't follow these basic calculations, you should considering just shutting up.
    You are embarrassing yourself. If he proposed a x100 uplift in the number of deaths, you can probably conclude that he would posit an uplift in the number of cases.
    No - I can't conclude anything.

    It's anyone's guess what may or may not be in his head. There's no evidence for any of it. If you think his vapourings are of any value, take it up with him. It's certainly not up to me to make sense of his nonsense.

    This used to be a site where critical thinking was encouraged, I think. These days, people seem eager to swallow any drivel that's posted here, and to attack anyone questioning it. Bizarre.
    Yes, you can. I doubt anyone would suggest that the death rate is underestimated by a factor of 10 or 100 yet argue the case rate is not the same. You yourself have pointed out how illogical that would be. Therefore the most reasonable explanation is that they thought both the death rate and the case rate were overestimated. I really don't see why you are having such a hard time accepting that?
    Who knows what they were assuming? I repeat - if you want to know that, ask them, not me! I don't know why you are finding that so difficult to understand.

    But I did ask you - if you disregard the Chinese figures - what on earth you are assuming about the fatality rate of this disease? 10%? 20%? Not a clue?

    Please do explain.
    I'm just applying some critical thinking. If someone is assuming that the death rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported, it is likely that they also assume the case rate is an order of magnitude higher than reported.
    You didn't answer my question.

    What do you think the fatality rate is, and on what basis?
    What's that got to do with anything?.
    You really don't understand?

    You don't understand that our estimates of the fatality rate are primarily based on data from China? And - as you've just demonstrated - if the data from China are disgregarded, you don't have the slightest clue what the fatality rate of this disease is?

    And not only that, but you don't have the slightest clue how fast it spreads - because our estimates of the R number are also primarily based on Chinese data? So if you disregard the Chinese data, you don't have a clue about that either?

    You seem to be one of those people who pontificate endlessly, without having the slighest clue about what any of your assumptions are based on.
    Ah, so now we are onto deflection.

    Nice trimming of my post to remove the context.
    You are completely unable to answer. No surprise.
    I'm sorry, but we were discussing your claim that someone was stating a 550% mortality rate for the Chinese figures. Your questions have nothing to do with that, so I can only assume it is deflection.
    Assume what you like, but please don't complain if I consider you a complete mopron!
    Charming, but again deflection from your central claim that was the point of contention.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Charles said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    I'm reading a very good book about Alfred.

    Viking incursions make a welcome change from plague
    I've been reading the Shape novels, fighting the French being more on brand for PB
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Foxy said:

    On a more cheerful note, it is an ill wind that blows no good...


    I'm reminded of Diana's death, where the BBC unforgettably made this blooper:

    'Prince Charles will first go to the hospital where Princess Diana died, where he will thank the staff.'
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    I'm sorry, but we were discussing your claim that someone was stating a 550% mortality rate for the Chinese figures. Your questions have nothing to do with that, so I can only assume it is deflection.

    Assume what you like, but please don't complain if I consider you a complete mopron!

    Mopron indeed!

    But, spittle-flecked keyboard aside, and while it's good to see you back on form, and realising that it is part of your coping mechanism, I can't help thinking that your posting style is doing you more harm than good.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526

    Endillion said:

    Ooh, NHS England has started graphing their daily deaths reporting by day of death. First change to the format in a while.

    429 reported today in England. Lowest for ages, but looks to be significant weekend reporting delay. I suspect that tomorrow is going to see reports well over a thousand due to the backlog being released. If not, then we'll finally have some evidence that we're over the peak.

    Current position for the last three days is 85, 328, 446 (going backwards, so Apr 19/18/17). Two weeks ago, the equivalent positions were 69, 285, 350. Extrapolating, I'd guess we're still running at 700 per day in England, which is where we've been pretty much since the start of April.

    If we do go over the 1,000, then that is shit politics. Why implement the change to make to appear things are getting no better/maybe worse?

    Which makes me think, maybe they know we won't top the 1,000. And the new reporting metric will then show a significant daily lowering of deaths. Maybe?
    It's not a major change to the format, just prominence. The figures by date of death are regularly posted here and you can follow them on Twitter already (the very helpful @cricketwyvern)

    I don't quite agree with Endillion's interpretation, though. Yesterday and today are the first real evidence of green shoots we've had, as opposed to a plateau. Even recording quibbles are unlikely to completely make up for that.
    I do hope you are right. The UK needs some indication that the past four weeks have been worth it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    So to summarise earlier comments:

    When it comes to airlines, BA's operations should be bailed out but -

    We should screw Virgin's.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118

    Captain Tom just about to go through £27m......

    ...and he's done it.

    I hope we are getting some extra laps out of him for all this extra money!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
  • A family friend was at university with the police officer shot in Nova Scotia. She is from Halifax, but now lives in Sydney (Aus) via some years in Vancouver, and Is understandably very upset today. Her father lives within six miles of the shootings
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    Captain Tom just about to go through £27m......

    ...and he's done it.

    I hope we are getting some extra laps out of him for all this extra money!
    I hope not! He should not be exerting himself too much at his age!
  • ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    The poor Geordies, they’ll be wanting Ashley back at this rate.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477

    Mr. Urquhart, not my area but my understanding is that Youtubers tend to not actually make that much from Youtube directly. Hence sponsored ads and Patreon's popularity.

    I believe there are massive disparities in the ad rates for different types of content and at different times of year. Some channels that might only get a few 100k views per video actually make a significant amount of money and sometimes it can be just one video going viral at the right time that makes a substantial proportion of a year money.

    Hence the sponsorship / patreon to try and provide consistent base level of income every month.
    Some of my favourite channels don't receive much advertising money ;) I like to check all viewpoints ^_~
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    We can all thank Putin for the cheap petrol when this is all over. He tried to screw over the US shale industry and had his bluff called by the Saudis - who reckon their marginal extraction cost is less than $3 a barrel.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Eadric, I read a biography of Alfred by Justin Pollard that I enjoyed a lot.

    Or for a more fun approach to Vikings you could try the Unofficial Manual by John Haywood. (It's a nice little series, other entries being Legionary, Knight, Gladiator, and Samurai).
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,835
    Endillion said:

    eadric said:

    Endillion said:

    Ooh, NHS England has started graphing their daily deaths reporting by day of death. First change to the format in a while.

    429 reported today in England. Lowest for ages, but looks to be significant weekend reporting delay. I suspect that tomorrow is going to see reports well over a thousand due to the backlog being released. If not, then we'll finally have some evidence that we're over the peak.

    Current position for the last three days is 85, 328, 446 (going backwards, so Apr 19/18/17). Two weeks ago, the equivalent positions were 69, 285, 350. Extrapolating, I'd guess we're still running at 700 per day in England, which is where we've been pretty much since the start of April.

    Christ, that's depressing. Just when I was cheering up.

    So on your maths, we have gone nowhere since early April?

    A death rate in excess of 1000, tomorrow, will be very grim.
    Pretty much. Excluding April 8 (which everyone gets excited about but looks much more like an outlier than a genuine peak), every day from Apr 3 onwards currently looks likely to end up at somewhere between 600 and 800.

    The main good bits of news are a) it definitely has stopped getting worse, and b) it looks like reporting has sped up, so I'm potentially overestimating the ultimate position of the more recent days. There are some potential interpretations of the data that show a clear, albeit gentle, downward trend from Apr 11 onwards (top give you an idea, 730 on Apr 11 vs 660 on Apr 16). Still too early to have much confidence in this, though.

    The other thing is there is a slight trend in the regional pattern away from London - but probably insufficient data to tell if that's due to London moving beyond a peak, or the rest of the country approaching one.
    It does look rather plateau-ish.

    Looking at the deaths per date as at immediately after the "grey" period of "data highly subject to change" (it does still increase after that, but less rapidly) in order to try to compare things at least somewhat similar to each other.
    (NB data for 28 March is that of one day after the others, as the daily data wasn't easily still available, so would in actuality be likely a little below that position (thus marked with dashed line); data for 15 April is still one day before the grey period ends and in reality will be higher than the given position (thus marked with dotted line))


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    It would appear my neighbours have decided to acquire a cockerel during this lockdown. Is sneaking over the fence and throttling it to keep quiet a violation of lockdown?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    kinabalu said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
    Realism?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    We can all thank Putin for the cheap petrol when this is all over. He tried to screw over the US shale industry and had his bluff called by the Saudis - who reckon their marginal extraction cost is less than $3 a barrel.
    Another question might be, how is this affecting the prices of natural gas? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Deflation there would be pretty seriously good news given how reliant our energy sector is on it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    kinabalu said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
    Stockholm Syndrome?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    edited April 2020
    It's possible there may be particular features of this virus that mean most deaths take place in the first wave and that the chances of a second or third wave being worse are relatively low. I'd like to read/hear expert commentary on this.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. kle4, it's an offence to beat a cock without permission of the owner.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    kle4 said:

    It would appear my neighbours have decided to acquire a cockerel during this lockdown. Is sneaking over the fence and throttling it to keep quiet a violation of lockdown?

    Not necessarily, but be careful how you phrase it. 'I just hopped over the fence to squeeze my neighbour's cock' might be misunderstood.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    We can all thank Putin for the cheap petrol when this is all over. He tried to screw over the US shale industry and had his bluff called by the Saudis - who reckon their marginal extraction cost is less than $3 a barrel.
    Another question might be, how is this affecting the prices of natural gas? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Deflation there would be pretty seriously good news given how reliant our energy sector is on it.
    Gas prices are down, but not off 85% like the oil price. More volatile and seasonal market than oil though.

    https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/commodities/ng:nmx
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Mr. kle4, it's an offence to beat a cock without permission of the owner.

    Maybe tell Jolyon Maugham it was caught in chicken wire.

    However, he's the sort of man who fox everything up.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    eadric said:

    Charles said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    I'm reading a very good book about Alfred.

    Viking incursions make a welcome change from plague
    What's the book? (I love Dark Age History, where myth blends into fact)
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Alfred-Great-Justin-Pollard/dp/0719566665

    High level narrative - not my period, but was reading Our Island Story and thought I should check the details...
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    edited April 2020
    eadric said:

    Another, more positive spin from a number cruncher

    https://twitter.com/TomChivers/status/1252238683077586946?s=20

    8th April. The people whose graphs I have been posting, and been slagged off for doing so by the angry mob, have been saying this a while
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    We can all thank Putin for the cheap petrol when this is all over. He tried to screw over the US shale industry and had his bluff called by the Saudis - who reckon their marginal extraction cost is less than $3 a barrel.
    Another question might be, how is this affecting the prices of natural gas? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know. Deflation there would be pretty seriously good news given how reliant our energy sector is on it.
    Gas prices are down, but not off 85% like the oil price. More volatile and seasonal market than oil though.

    https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/commodities/ng:nmx
    Thanks, interesting website.

    Even if they're not as off the chart as the oil price collapse, interesting to see they have only been this low twice in the last ten years.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    As an aside, the popularity of cockfighting (until a couple of centuries ago it was the most popular of sports in England) may be why the slang for todger in English is 'cock'. Could be wrong, but I think it's 'dog' in most other European languages.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    @isam Skimming through the numbers I'd say we're reporting more quickly now. It'd make sense for reporting systems to improve as we've gone through this.
    I'd be prepared to say the 8th April is almost certainly a first lockdown peak.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    edited April 2020
    Andy_JS said:

    It's possible there may be particular features of this virus that mean most deaths take place in the first wave and that the chances of a second or third wave being worse are relatively low. I'd like to read/hear expert commentary on this.

    Not an expert giving commentary, but...


    Maybe it is a flat track bully, it kills a lot of the vulnerable very quickly and can’t land much of a blow on the rest. The amount on under 60s dying is about 6% of covid deaths. Yet we keep hearing how vulnerable we all are.

    The Swedish prof on unherd seems to think so. He puts their high death rate compared to Norway down to the difference in size of Norwegian and Swedish care homes
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    I've heard it recommended that parents praise their children a lot.

    Must admit, as a child it led to me starting to ignore my parents' opinions because I quickly realised they weren't remotely discriminating.

    Better to do that that relentlessly criticise.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    Captain Tom just about to go through £27m......

    ...and he's done it.

    I hope we are getting some extra laps out of him for all this extra money!
    Captain Tom's cost per lap is going to have @rcs1000 moaning about low British productivity again.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
    Realism?
    Sort of. But that is the middle ground between undue optimism and undue pessimism. So not quite the opposite of escapism.

    There must be a word. Or if there isn't it needs coining.
  • Andy_JS said:

    It's possible there may be particular features of this virus that mean most deaths take place in the first wave and that the chances of a second or third wave being worse are relatively low. I'd like to read/hear expert commentary on this.

    Physics teacher who has to teach GCSE biology, so not that expert...

    Normally, you'd expect viruses to evolve to something less deadly; the variants that let the host live longer get more time to reproduce and spread. The 1918/19 flu was unusual in the nastiness of the second wave; that might have been driven by the unusual circumstances (soldiers who got it mildly stayed where they were, those who got it badly were sent away from treatment, enhancing the spread).

    Or something like that. Back on with your work, Year 10.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,360
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    It would appear my neighbours have decided to acquire a cockerel during this lockdown. Is sneaking over the fence and throttling it to keep quiet a violation of lockdown?

    Not necessarily, but be careful how you phrase it. 'I just hopped over the fence to squeeze my neighbour's cock' might be misunderstood.
    Perhaps you should try choking his chicken?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
    Stockholm Syndrome?
    See where you're coming from there. It's good.

    But it's not quite what we're looking for.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    It would appear my neighbours have decided to acquire a cockerel during this lockdown. Is sneaking over the fence and throttling it to keep quiet a violation of lockdown?

    Not necessarily, but be careful how you phrase it. 'I just hopped over the fence to squeeze my neighbour's cock' might be misunderstood.
    Perhaps you should try choking his chicken?
    Why should I choke @kle4's chicken? It's his neighbour's cock that's the problem.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    Must be tricky getting data in China, when the doctors are saying all these smokers are dead, whilst the local Communist Party officials keep insisting, no they are absolutely fine....
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
    Realism?
    “Realism? I caught a fucking dose off it!”

    Punchline to a Bernard Manning joke about a blow up doll
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    I've heard it recommended that parents praise their children a lot.

    Must admit, as a child it led to me starting to ignore my parents' opinions because I quickly realised they weren't remotely discriminating.

    Better to do that that relentlessly criticise.
    Some say parents should praise effort rather than achievement to avoid raising lazy smartarses; or something about kids becoming reluctant to ask questions about things they don't understand. Maybe all this confusion is why the rich outsource childcare to nannies, governesses and boarding schools.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    It would appear my neighbours have decided to acquire a cockerel during this lockdown. Is sneaking over the fence and throttling it to keep quiet a violation of lockdown?

    Not necessarily, but be careful how you phrase it. 'I just hopped over the fence to squeeze my neighbour's cock' might be misunderstood.
    Perhaps you should try choking his chicken?
    Why should I choke @kle4's chicken? It's his neighbour's cock that's the problem.
    I am proud to have raised the tenor of debate today.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    It would appear my neighbours have decided to acquire a cockerel during this lockdown. Is sneaking over the fence and throttling it to keep quiet a violation of lockdown?

    Not necessarily, but be careful how you phrase it. 'I just hopped over the fence to squeeze my neighbour's cock' might be misunderstood.
    Perhaps you should try choking his chicken?
    Why should I choke @kle4's chicken? It's his neighbour's cock that's the problem.
    I am proud to have raised the tenor of debate today.
    No need to crow about it...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    kle4 said:

    It would appear my neighbours have decided to acquire a cockerel during this lockdown. Is sneaking over the fence and throttling it to keep quiet a violation of lockdown?

    Do you think you could pullet off?
  • eekeek Posts: 15,818

    Andy_JS said:

    It's possible there may be particular features of this virus that mean most deaths take place in the first wave and that the chances of a second or third wave being worse are relatively low. I'd like to read/hear expert commentary on this.

    Physics teacher who has to teach GCSE biology, so not that expert...

    Normally, you'd expect viruses to evolve to something less deadly; the variants that let the host live longer get more time to reproduce and spread. The 1918/19 flu was unusual in the nastiness of the second wave; that might have been driven by the unusual circumstances (soldiers who got it mildly stayed where they were, those who got it badly were sent away from treatment, enhancing the spread).

    Or something like that. Back on with your work, Year 10.
    Isn't that a repeat of Scotland and the black death. Scotland invades in 1349 and doesn't succeed much except catching the black death and rapidly spreading across the country as the soldiers returned.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    eadric said:

    This is a crisp analysis of the corona data.

    Basically, it all comes down to how many old men there are. If your country has lots, you're in trouble.

    This also implies strict lockdowns aren't necessary, maybe (tho Greece suggests they might be, confusingly)

    Def worth a read

    https://marketmonetarist.com/2020/04/20/one-factor-explains-most-of-the-differences-in-covid19-deaths-across-countries/

    Poor countries where men have to work hard physically better off?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,835
    isam said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It's possible there may be particular features of this virus that mean most deaths take place in the first wave and that the chances of a second or third wave being worse are relatively low. I'd like to read/hear expert commentary on this.

    Not an expert giving commentary, but...


    Maybe it is a flat track bully, it kills a lot of the vulnerable very quickly and can’t land much of a blow on the rest. The amount on under 60s dying is about 6% of covid deaths. Yet we keep hearing how vulnerable we all are.

    The Swedish prof on unherd seems to think so. He puts their high death rate compared to Norway down to the difference in size of Norwegian and Swedish care homes
    That's an impressive effect. If they had the same ratios, Swedish death toll would be 311 rather than 1,540.
    The care home size quintuples the death toll in Sweden?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,740

    Andy_JS said:

    It's possible there may be particular features of this virus that mean most deaths take place in the first wave and that the chances of a second or third wave being worse are relatively low. I'd like to read/hear expert commentary on this.

    Physics teacher who has to teach GCSE biology, so not that expert...

    Normally, you'd expect viruses to evolve to something less deadly; the variants that let the host live longer get more time to reproduce and spread. The 1918/19 flu was unusual in the nastiness of the second wave; that might have been driven by the unusual circumstances (soldiers who got it mildly stayed where they were, those who got it badly were sent away from treatment, enhancing the spread).

    Or something like that. Back on with your work, Year 10.
    A friend told of a physics teacher teaching biology saying to one of the girls: don't feed the worms, you might frighten them; let one of the pretty girls do it. Wasn't you by any chance? Actually I think said teacher later died with dementia so perhaps that was one of the first signs.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    South African Airways and Virgin Australia are also in serious trouble, talk of administration today for both of these. Airline industry not surprisingly on its knees.
    https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1252187021990334464?s=21
    I’d say there’s precisely zero chance of the UK government bailing out Virgin Atlantic.
    They’re not a strategic UK asset, they’re 49% owned by Delta in the USA and 51% owned by Virgin Group based in the British Virgin Islands.
    As you say Delta owns 49% of Virgin, so maybe we should offer to match whatever the US offers Delta to prop up this joint venture?
    The Virgin Islands government should, not the British government. Why should the British government be bailing out companies based offshore?
    Virgin Atlantic is UK based.
    Let's give them a 5 year super senior loan, mid-teen coupon (1/2 cash payable, 1/2 PIK), plus a 20% equity stake in warrants as a kicker. Escalating coupon from year 3 onwards to encourage refinancing.
    In plain English please?
    * Super senior = security above everything else. If they don't repay we get the plans, the brand, everything down to the cabin crews uniform

    * mid-teen coupon = 15% interest rate

    * 1/2 cash, 1/2 PIK = only 7.5% p.a. in cash, with the balance of the interest rolled up with the loan

    * 20% equity stake as warrants = we get to take a 20% equity stake for a nominal value when we decide to do

    * Escalating coupon = 15% p.a. up to year 3, 17.5% in year 4, 20% in year 5... incentivise them to refinance the loan with someone else by making it very expensive
    Thank you - you think they'd accept it?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    eadric said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    Another Oxford academic weighs in....

    Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, claims data shows infection rates halved after the Government launched a hand-washing drive and recommend people keep two metres apart on March 16.

    He said ministers 'lost sight' of the evidence and rushed into a nationwide quarantine six days later after being instructed by scientific advisers who have been 'consistently wrong' during the crisis.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235979/UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peaked-lockdown-Expert-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html

    Intriguing. Tho this sentence makes me wonder how accurate the reporting is

    "Less than 6 per cent of Sweden's workforce had filed claims for unemployment benefits - wheres a quarter of Britons (1.4 million people) have applied for universal credit. "
    Doesn’t the fact that 1.4 million people clearly isn’t “a quarter of Britons” make you question this piece of fake news?
    Er, that's what I was saying. The reporter appears to believe the UK has a population of 6 million, which rather throws his other assertions into doubt.
    Yes indeed.

    You, however, need to sort out what it is that you are recommending. Having spent a long time advocating an earlier, harsher, lockdown, in last night’s thread you appear to be advocating a looser, Swedish style approach.

    You also banged on about the importance of following government advice, to all of us who are staying at home whilst you continue your - probably illegal - holiday away from home in South Wales.
    Not true.

    I have been consistently panicky and alarmed about coronavirus as a threat to life and business, since early Feb, as you well know. You can call me a nutter or a maniac, it doesn't really matter (surely we are a bit beyond this name calling now?)

    But in terms of our best reaction, I have always been much more divided.

    By about mid Feb I was speculating, on here (I can find the comment if you insist) that one arguable approach would be just to let it rip. That it was a bastard of a virus that would strike us anyway, and the economic damage of total lockdown (that we saw in Wuhan) was worse than any probable death toll.

    I was not sure then, and I am still not sure now. Maybe Sweden is right, maybe they aren't.

    You can accuse me of not making my mind up, but then many in government keep changing their minds, as does the best scientific advice, indeed the absolute boffins - the epidemiologists, are entirely split, some say Do a Sweden, some say Do a Wuhan.

    So it is forgivable for the layman to be unsure

    Actually, no.

    In early Feb - contrary to what you have since repeatedly tried to claim (cf last night’s thread), you were predicting that the virus would be relatively “benign”. (your quote)

    Yes, back at that time you were certainly advocating that we just endure the pain. Your advice to the elderly and vulnerable, as I recall, was that they should be give some heroin and be told to fuck off and die.

    In late Feb, you certainly changed your tune, flipping to apocalyptic predictions that, so far at least, look completely ludicrous. We aren’t ever going to see your two million dead Brits even if we have to ensure multiple waves of this virus.

    The one thing you haven’t predicted is the mid path of dangerous but not massively deadly path that we seem to be following.

    The one point on which we can agree is that people who have never managed or run anything during their career are the very last people on whom we should rely for any sort of sensible advice.
    Er, OK.

    *backing away from mad person emoji*



    The emoji you are looking for is truth hurts.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    kinabalu said:

    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
    Realism?
    Sort of. But that is the middle ground between undue optimism and undue pessimism. So not quite the opposite of escapism.

    There must be a word. Or if there isn't it needs coining.
    Catastrophe wanking.

    But that's two words.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460

    I've heard it recommended that parents praise their children a lot.

    Must admit, as a child it led to me starting to ignore my parents' opinions because I quickly realised they weren't remotely discriminating.

    Better to do that that relentlessly criticise.
    That's verging on child abuse IMO, if you do that.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
    Can cigarette smoke carry the virus? Cigarette smoke doesn't obey the 2 metre rule...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    King Cole, indeed, but there's a huge yawning chasm between the two extremes.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    edited April 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
    There was definitely a Chinese study that found this and was put up on a pre-print server. But I believe a lot of these rely on people being asked if they are a smoker. Its a bit like asking people if they drink.

    It might be that in some weird way smoking helps prevent contracting it, but it seems rather counter-intuitive, that people knackering their lungs every day might be better off.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,720
    ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    You forgot to mention how bad it would be for the Scottish economy if they were aver cast adrift.
  • King Cole, indeed, but there's a huge yawning chasm between the two extremes.

    I’m fortunate that my kids are just like me, everything they do is brilliant, so all the praise they get is justified.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,162
    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    Another Oxford academic weighs in....

    Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, claims data shows infection rates halved after the Government launched a hand-washing drive and recommend people keep two metres apart on March 16.

    He said ministers 'lost sight' of the evidence and rushed into a nationwide quarantine six days later after being instructed by scientific advisers who have been 'consistently wrong' during the crisis.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235979/UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peaked-lockdown-Expert-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html

    Intriguing. Tho this sentence makes me wonder how accurate the reporting is

    "Less than 6 per cent of Sweden's workforce had filed claims for unemployment benefits - wheres a quarter of Britons (1.4 million people) have applied for universal credit. "
    Doesn’t the fact that 1.4 million people clearly isn’t “a quarter of Britons” make you question this piece of fake news?
    Er, that's what I was saying. The reporter appears to believe the UK has a population of 6 million, which rather throws his other assertions into doubt.
    Yes indeed.

    You, however, need to sort out what it is that you are recommending. Having spent a long time advocating an earlier, harsher, lockdown, in last night’s thread you appear to be advocating a looser, Swedish style approach.

    You also banged on about the importance of following government advice, to all of us who are staying at home whilst you continue your - probably illegal - holiday away from home in South Wales.
    Not true.

    I have been consistently panicky and alarmed about coronavirus as a threat to life and business, since early Feb, as you well know. You can call me a nutter or a maniac, it doesn't really matter (surely we are a bit beyond this name calling now?)

    But in terms of our best reaction, I have always been much more divided.

    By about mid Feb I was speculating, on here (I can find the comment if you insist) that one arguable approach would be just to let it rip. That it was a bastard of a virus that would strike us anyway, and the economic damage of total lockdown (that we saw in Wuhan) was worse than any probable death toll.

    I was not sure then, and I am still not sure now. Maybe Sweden is right, maybe they aren't.

    You can accuse me of not making my mind up, but then many in government keep changing their minds, as does the best scientific advice, indeed the absolute boffins - the epidemiologists, are entirely split, some say Do a Sweden, some say Do a Wuhan.

    So it is forgivable for the layman to be unsure

    Actually, no.

    In early Feb - contrary to what you have since repeatedly tried to claim (cf last night’s thread), you were predicting that the virus would be relatively “benign”. (your quote)

    Yes, back at that time you were certainly advocating that we just endure the pain. Your advice to the elderly and vulnerable, as I recall, was that they should be give some heroin and be told to fuck off and die.

    In late Feb, you certainly changed your tune, flipping to apocalyptic predictions that, so far at least, look completely ludicrous. We aren’t ever going to see your two million dead Brits even if we have to endure multiple waves of this virus.

    The one thing you haven’t predicted is the mid path of dangerous but not massively deadly path that we seem to be following.

    The one point on which we can agree is that people who have never managed or run anything during their career are the very last people on whom we should rely for any sort of sensible advice.
    You missed the bit where Eadric predicted that between 10% and 25% of people would die of Covid-19 - a lot more than 2 million in Britain!

    Eadric complains that people didn't listen to Eadric, but never wonders why Eadric was not convincing - could it be something to do with the ridiculous style and over-the-top "predictions"?

    Meanwhile, this kind of attention-seeking behaviour unfortunately tends to drown out the far more realistic and convincing warnings given by others.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    felix said:

    ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    You forgot to mention how bad it would be for the Scottish economy if they were aver cast adrift.
    I think we'll be fine with the sovereign wealth fund built up by the wise stewardship of the UK.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    I thought this story sounded erhh interesting...

    "Dear Matt Hancock - this is my daughter - who I put to bed tonight sobbing and begging me not work in A&E - her words broke me,"

    Actually, the reality is I've been going to work for weeks in a crap plastic pinny and a basic surgical mask.

    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-a-e-nurse-unable-to-reassure-sobbing-daughter-without-lying-about-ppe-11975205

    Kate Sheehan, a local Labour Party Vice Chair whose viral tweet attacking the Government over a lack of Personal Protective Equipment was very widely reported, appears to have given PPE equipment away the day before she complained. She was thanked for “donating mask, visors and aprons” to local volunteers, while containers full of more equipment had arrived at her hospital.

    https://order-order.com/2020/04/20/nurse-celebrated-boris-admitted-icu-gave-away-ppe-shortage-complaint/
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    edited April 2020

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
    There was definitely a Chinese study that found this and was put up on a pre-print server. But I believe a lot of these rely on people being asked if they are a smoker. Its a bit like asking people if they drink.

    It might be that in some weird way smoking helps prevent contracting it, but it seems rather counter-intuitive, that people knackering their lungs every day might be better off.
    And if smokers truly were much less likely to get it, I imagine it would not be widely publicized.

    But stop! - this is how conspiracy theories spread. And I HATE conspiracy theories. Even if there is one, I do not want to hear about it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    kinabalu said:

    I've heard it recommended that parents praise their children a lot.

    Must admit, as a child it led to me starting to ignore my parents' opinions because I quickly realised they weren't remotely discriminating.

    Better to do that that relentlessly criticise.
    That's verging on child abuse IMO, if you do that.
    Fortunately my parents had different attitudes to my achievements. Such as they were.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,869

    kinabalu said:

    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:

    eadric said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    I find it very hard to read books that aren't actually about plague, or contagion, or viruses, or pandemic history, etc etc

    And I'm doing a lot of reading.
    The dead opposite of escapism. Is there a word for this?
    Realism?
    Sort of. But that is the middle ground between undue optimism and undue pessimism. So not quite the opposite of escapism.

    There must be a word. Or if there isn't it needs coining.
    Catastrophe wanking.

    But that's two words.
    Catasturbation?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,162

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
    There was definitely a Chinese study that found this and was put up on a pre-print server. But I believe a lot of these rely on people being asked if they are a smoker. Its a bit like asking people if they drink.

    It might be that in some weird way smoking helps prevent contracting it, but it seems rather counter-intuitive, that people knackering their lungs every day might be better off.
    or more likely that smoking makes it more likely that you don't notice that you are ill
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    kamski said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
    There was definitely a Chinese study that found this and was put up on a pre-print server. But I believe a lot of these rely on people being asked if they are a smoker. Its a bit like asking people if they drink.

    It might be that in some weird way smoking helps prevent contracting it, but it seems rather counter-intuitive, that people knackering their lungs every day might be better off.
    or more likely that smoking makes it more likely that you don't notice that you are ill
    And / or, you don't want to admit for fear you don't get the same treatment as others.

    Although, in China, that would mean you are less likely to get your organs harvested.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    Sweden records just 40 new coronavirus deaths and less than 400 fresh cases in one day as the country continues to avoid lockdown

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8237015/Sweden-records-just-40-new-coronavirus-deaths-latest-figures.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:


    I appreciate everyone likes daily figures because they give a lot more to talk about, but aside from giving some idea of the trajectory, the numbers themselves seem close to useless to me.

    Yes, well put.

    The lack of news is a genuine problem, I think. Fluff is having to be used by broadcasters and print media to fill time and space.

    I do think the trajectory will be somewhat useful in estimating Rt. If each generation takes about a week, as seems to be the assumption in the models, then a 20% week-on-week decrease in London hospital deaths, which I vaguely remember seeing yesterday somewhere, would suggest Rt=0.8 now (well, a couple of weeks ago, and this probably excludes that part of the population which are not hospitalized for it). The boffins will be doing a more sophisticated version of this calculation.

    --AS
    There were 16 people killed in a shooting spree in Canada yesterday which I'm not even sure was mentioned here. It's not so much that there's no news, just that the virus has swamped everything else to the point that folk would rather have Corona fluff over actual news.
    The current oil price should be getting a lot more attention than it is. If it continues at anything like the current price for any length of time, there are some countries (never mind companies) in fearful trouble, over and above the Covid-19 crisis.
    It would be incredibly sad to see the governments of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and Kazakhstan be plunged into turmoil.

    Heart of stone...
    You forgot to mention how bad it would be for the Scottish economy if they were aver cast adrift.
    I think we'll be fine with the sovereign wealth fund built up by the wise stewardship of the UK.
    I was just thinking that I don't want any ballistic turnips incoming from Ayrshire. It might be considered a breach of lockdown.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    Got to chuckle at the Daily Mail top headline - "Did we jump too soon?"

    Where as a couple of days ago, it was all about did we go too late....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    edited April 2020

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
    Can cigarette smoke carry the virus? Cigarette smoke doesn't obey the 2 metre rule...
    It did strike me that smoking outside might be bad news because you could be transferring the virus from your fingers onto the tip of the fag before lighting up.

    There is no easy way to smoke a cigarette without using both your fingers and your mouth. It's an unusual activity in this regard.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Got to chuckle at the Daily Mail top headline - "Did we jump too soon?"

    Where as a couple of days ago, it was all about did we go too late....

    As some of us have been saying on here since the 'We Must Be Locked Down Now" brigade started.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118

    Got to chuckle at the Daily Mail top headline - "Did we jump too soon?"

    Where as a couple of days ago, it was all about did we go too late....

    As some of us have been saying on here since the 'We Must Be Locked Down Now" brigade started.
    If Sweden, nor Germany, do turn out to be the "gold standard" in balancing CV deaths against tanking your economy, I imagine we won't hear the end of why didn't we follow them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    Got to chuckle at the Daily Mail top headline - "Did we jump too soon?"

    Where as a couple of days ago, it was all about did we go too late....

    Seamless as well.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,166
    What are peoples views on why much of Africa has been spared a major outbreak?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460

    Sweden records just 40 new coronavirus deaths and less than 400 fresh cases in one day as the country continues to avoid lockdown

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8237015/Sweden-records-just-40-new-coronavirus-deaths-latest-figures.html

    So are the rest of us turnips?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    edited April 2020
    kamski said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    IanB2 said:

    eadric said:

    Another Oxford academic weighs in....

    Carl Heneghan, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, claims data shows infection rates halved after the Government launched a hand-washing drive and recommend people keep two metres apart on March 16.

    He said ministers 'lost sight' of the evidence and rushed into a nationwide quarantine six days later after being instructed by scientific advisers who have been 'consistently wrong' during the crisis.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8235979/UKs-coronavirus-crisis-peaked-lockdown-Expert-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html

    Intriguing. Tho this sentence makes me wonder how accurate the reporting is

    "Less than 6 per cent of Sweden's workforce had filed claims for unemployment benefits - wheres a quarter of Britons (1.4 million people) have applied for universal credit. "
    Doesn’t the fact that 1.4 million people clearly isn’t “a quarter of Britons” make you question this piece of fake news?
    Er, that's what I was saying. The reporter appears to believe the UK has a population of 6 million, which rather throws his other assertions into doubt.
    Yes indeed.

    You, however, need to sort out what it is that you are recommending. Having spent a long time advocating an earlier, harsher, lockdown, in last night’s thread you appear to be advocating a looser, Swedish style approach.

    You also banged on about the importance of following government advice, to all of us who are staying at home whilst you continue your - probably illegal - holiday away from home in South Wales.
    Not true.

    I have been consistently panicky and alarmed about coronavirus as a threat to life and business, since early Feb, as you well know. You can call me a nutter or a maniac, it doesn't really matter (surely we are a bit beyond this name calling now?)

    But in terms of our best reaction, I have always been much more divided.

    By about mid Feb I was speculating, on here (I can find the comment if you insist) that one arguable approach would be just to let it rip. That it was a bastard of a virus that would strike us anyway, and the economic damage of total lockdown (that we saw in Wuhan) was worse than any probable death toll.

    I was not sure then, and I am still not sure now. Maybe Sweden is right, maybe they aren't.

    You can accuse me of not making my mind up, but then many in government keep changing their minds, as does the best scientific advice, indeed the absolute boffins - the epidemiologists, are entirely split, some say Do a Sweden, some say Do a Wuhan.

    So it is forgivable for the layman to be unsure

    Actually, no.

    In early Feb - contrary to what you have since repeatedly tried to claim (cf last night’s thread), you were predicting that the virus would be relatively “benign”. (your quote)

    Yes, back at that time you were certainly advocating that we just endure the pain. Your advice to the elderly and vulnerable, as I recall, was that they should be give some heroin and be told to fuck off and die.

    In late Feb, you certainly changed your tune, flipping to apocalyptic predictions that, so far at least, look completely ludicrous. We aren’t ever going to see your two million dead Brits even if we have to endure multiple waves of this virus.

    The one thing you haven’t predicted is the mid path of dangerous but not massively deadly path that we seem to be following.

    The one point on which we can agree is that people who have never managed or run anything during their career are the very last people on whom we should rely for any sort of sensible advice.
    You missed the bit where Eadric predicted that between 10% and 25% of people would die of Covid-19 - a lot more than 2 million in Britain!

    Eadric complains that people didn't listen to Eadric, but never wonders why Eadric was not convincing - could it be something to do with the ridiculous style and over-the-top "predictions"?

    Meanwhile, this kind of attention-seeking behaviour unfortunately tends to drown out the far more realistic and convincing warnings given by others.
    Sadly, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is simply full of s**t.

    He has both claimed to have had the virus and regaled us all with the extraordinary lengths he has gone to, to avoid catching it.

    He has predicted every extreme option from storm in a teacup to global Armageddon, never coming anywhere near the actual course of events, yet repeatedly claims to be some sort of Nostradamus, mostly by selecting random predictions from his stream and knocking a month or more off the date that it was posted, hoping none of us are alert enough to notice.

    He regularly lambasts others for not following government advice despite being the only PB’er to admit openly that he hasn’t stayed at home.

    He’s gone from advocating an earlier Chinese style lockdown to commending a Swedish style open approach, in just a couple of weeks.

    He even spent yesterday morning trying to call out others for posts that might be considered offensive.

    And he did kick off by suggesting we tell our old folks to just f**k off and die.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,118
    edited April 2020
    kinabalu said:

    Sweden records just 40 new coronavirus deaths and less than 400 fresh cases in one day as the country continues to avoid lockdown

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8237015/Sweden-records-just-40-new-coronavirus-deaths-latest-figures.html

    So are the rest of us turnips?
    Nobody is going to know the answer to this for years. I think the fact that Swedes are on the whole appear to be very keen to follow rules is certainly in their favour when it comes to allowing an element of flexibility in their restrictions on normal life. My understanding is that although places like restaurants are open, there are quite clear rules, and very few are not observing it.

    We tried the please be sensible, and what we got was people going on the lash as the pub is having a sneaky lock in and they didn't tell me I couldn't go on a 300 miles round trip as part of my daily exercise.

    Also, things like much less high population density and I believe things like far fewer "house sharing" and multi-generational homes certainly is again to their advantage. It is really quite easy to buy your own home in Sweden, as the government schemes will put equity in it with you. The big downside is trying to sell it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    kinabalu said:

    Sweden records just 40 new coronavirus deaths and less than 400 fresh cases in one day as the country continues to avoid lockdown

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8237015/Sweden-records-just-40-new-coronavirus-deaths-latest-figures.html

    So are the rest of us turnips?
    It is interesting how more have not come to the conclusions Sweden has. It does provide some cover to governments and their scientific advisers.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,629
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    @MarqueeMark

    Where did you get the thing about SMOKERS being relatively immune to the virus?

    I find this to be a thrilling (!) little factoid if true.

    This contradicts it:

    "Smokers 14 times more likely to contract coronavirus
    According to research by Chinese doctors, acute smokers are more at risk of dying from COVID-19 than elderly people."

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/smokers-14-times-contract-coronavirus-200416071258252.html
    So what I heard was that smokers are less likely to get the virus but more likely to die if they do get it.

    Has an air of urban myth about it to me.
    Can cigarette smoke carry the virus? Cigarette smoke doesn't obey the 2 metre rule...
    It did strike me that smoking outside might be bad news because you could be transferring the virus from your fingers onto the tip of the fag before lighting up.

    There is no easy way to smoke a cigarette without using both your fingers and your mouth. It's an unusual activity in this regard.
    Smoke goes inside your lungs and then back out again, along with respiratory droplets?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566

    Sweden records just 40 new coronavirus deaths and less than 400 fresh cases in one day as the country continues to avoid lockdown

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8237015/Sweden-records-just-40-new-coronavirus-deaths-latest-figures.html

    Without making any comment on whether or not the Swedish policy is the right one - because I simply don't know, unfortunately that low number is just a repeat of what we have seen every weekend recently from both Sweden and other countries. Last Monday the equivalent number was 15 - again because of the weekend effect. It is meaningless when trying to assess how well or badly the Swedes re doing.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    Two pieces of good news today; went for a walk past the local asparagus farm and they've JUST started harvesting. So we bought a couple of bundles and left the money in the honesty box. Didn't actually have to speak to anyone.
    And our blue-tit's nest, in our nest box, appears to have six eggs in it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. kle4, we've always been at war with Eastasia.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858
    kinabalu said:

    Sweden records just 40 new coronavirus deaths and less than 400 fresh cases in one day as the country continues to avoid lockdown

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8237015/Sweden-records-just-40-new-coronavirus-deaths-latest-figures.html

    So are the rest of us turnips?
    Sweden is the experiment that us epidemiologists would love to do, but know we wouldn't get ethical approval for (nor even apply for it, on ethical grounds).

    Some caveats
    - how much testing are they doing?
    - how exactly are deaths defined? (hospital only, I think and are those who died routinely getting tests)
    - how does overall all cause mortality look? (don't think we have regular data)
    and finally
    - how much has behaviour in Sweden changed anyway, even in the absence of an enforced lockdown?

    It may turn out that Sweden got this right (balancing the immediate health costs against long-term economic costs and related health costs/deaths) but we won't know that for quite some time. Even if Sweden's internal economy is relatively unscathed, they'll presumably be fairly damaged by the economic effects in other countries anyway.
This discussion has been closed.