politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » COVID-19: It’s Not Your Fault
Comments
-
I visited China back in 2002. Had a very short lived but acute sickness when I entered Australia (Having been through Thailand). Never thought much of it, but looking back at the timeline of SARS 1 recently has me thinking ^^;AlastairMeeks said:
I’m rereading what I wrote and wondering how on earth you extracted that from my words. Since I don’t believe any such thing, and have avoided visiting China to date in part because I so strongly disapprove of that regime, I can only deduce that it comes from within the reader than from the written words.Alanbrooke said:
yes the CCP should not be scrutinisedAlastairMeeks said:On topic, it’s possible that Covid-19 is manmade. It’s even possible that it was deliberately released. The evidence for such serious claims, however, is thin. Western governments have sexed up evidence for political purposes before and the time when they can be trusted to be essentially honest is long past, if it ever existed.
0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, I was in China a year earlier. Whereabouts were you?
I visited mostly Shanghai and Beijing.0 -
Who said anything about reading them? Displaying them on your bookshelf is a different thing.FrancisUrquhart said:Here's the thing, you see. Michael Gove has probably done more for Holocaust education and the Jewish community in Britain than any senior politician other than Gordon Brown. It's obvious to anyone why he would have read the work of a Holocaust denier.
Owen Jones, on the other hand, was an actual cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn - a man described by one of his own MPs as a "racist antisemite". If Jones had his way, that same Jeremy Corbyn would be in Number Ten right now.
Twitter can be annoying, infuriating and sometimes plain pointless. But sometimes it can reveal truths. And in one stupid tweet last night, Owen Jones confirmed a truth about himself and his fellow hard left travellers: that their true ideology is hypocrisy.
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/one-stupid-tweet-by-owen-jones-confirms-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-hard-left-1.499433
I think I have a video of Triumph of The Will kicking about in a trunk somewhere. The humiliation of having a shelf full of videotapes aside, I wouldn't be sticking it in a bookcase anytime. One of my favourite books is Memoirs of an Anti-Semite; in the unlikely event of me appearing on Zoom in front of my books, I'd think hard about displaying that due to the possibility of misinterpretation by the dumbasses that infest the world.0 -
Agreed. Let's put it this way, so far the US has had just short of 70,000 confirmed CV deaths, which in just three months is roughly equivalent to the expected total 'flu deaths in a "bad" 'flu season year. Plus the CDC estimate of excess deaths from expected that are most likely to be attributable to COVID is another 30-40,000. It looks like NYC is showing an antibody rate of about 20% infected, so if we were to let it run unchecked, we'd probably be in the 400,000 deaths range, assuming that the whole country is currently at 20% infected which it clearly isn't.glw said:
It's not really, it's in line with the data from New York. They also seem to have roughly 10 undetected cases for every detected case. My hunch is that the UK will prove to be about the same level.Philip_Thompson said:
That's quite some iceberg!FrancisUrquhart said:More than 10 times as many people in Germany have likely been infected with the coronavirus than the number of confirmed cases, researchers from the University of Bonn have concluded from a field trial in one of the worst hit towns.
The idea that there is a vast asymptomatic iceberg which means we can go back to normal without a huge number of deaths is increasingly implausible. Even for Germany these current figures give an IFR around 0.4%. Let the virus run through the population and a hell of a lot of Germans would die.
You would need the undetected cases to be something like 100 x the current known cases for that idea to have any merit. i.e. To get to a bad seasonal flu type of scenario.
There are simply far to many people who could still catch the virus and die to do anything other than maintain quite strict measures.0 -
Well there are 2 other factors that will have contribution to R falling gradually over the long term.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Assuming that the graph is accurate in portraying those impacts, lockdown could still have saved countless lives.NerysHughes said:
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much differenceMalmesbury said:
If the infection period is deemed to last about a week, then if R had stayed at 0.9 the number of new cases at the end of 8 weeks would still be about 43% of the level at the start. By contrast if R were consistently 0.7 it means that new cases would be reduced to about 6% of the original level. R was 0.9 when lockdown started and has declined to about 0.7 since then, although the decline has been gradual not immediate.
1) Some people have now had the desise and therefor wont get it again, this is the start of the heard effect,
2) The weather has been getting warmer, we don't know how big an impact this will have had, as I understand it most of this family of viruses are to some extent weather transmition affected, so this viruses may also be.0 -
I thought heat having a positive impact was debunked? That the virus could live on through temperatures well past those of a good old-fashioned English spring/summer.BigRich said:
Well there are 2 other factors that will have contribution to R falling gradually over the long term.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Assuming that the graph is accurate in portraying those impacts, lockdown could still have saved countless lives.NerysHughes said:
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much differenceMalmesbury said:
If the infection period is deemed to last about a week, then if R had stayed at 0.9 the number of new cases at the end of 8 weeks would still be about 43% of the level at the start. By contrast if R were consistently 0.7 it means that new cases would be reduced to about 6% of the original level. R was 0.9 when lockdown started and has declined to about 0.7 since then, although the decline has been gradual not immediate.
1) Some people have now had the desise and therefor wont get it again, this is the start of the heard effect,
2) The weather has been getting warmer, we don't know how big an impact this will have had, as I understand it most of this family of viruses are to some extent weather transmition affected, so this viruses may also be.0 -
Its just an entrance to a secret roomOldKingCole said:
I didn't realise IDS read anything.Sandpit said:
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1257287304508563464FrancisUrquhart said:
https://twitter.com/Numberopinion/status/1257246885229867008?s=20CarlottaVance said:Owen Jones is trending.....and not in a good way.....
https://twitter.com/stephenpollard/status/1257285910883958785?s=202 -
Waahey, haven't had one of them for a while. Look forward to its return as we get closer to the big day.Floater said:
I'm no fan of Trump but2 -
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.isam said:
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.2 -
You're right.Alistair said:
But the 22nd only prohibits being elected president.Philip_Thompson said:
Becoming President doesn't require election, it does require eligibility.Alistair said:
Surely that cannot count as being elected president?Malmesbury said:
Nope. Even if he got into the order of succession by reason of being elected to Congress, he would be eliminated from the said order of succession by his being elected president twice.Alistair said:
So Obama can still become president again then.Philip_Thompson said:
No. Only VP needs to be eligible to become President (I think).Alistair said:Is a former two terms president ineligible to be elected to Congress?
0 -
To be clear there are plausible scenarios for the Wuhan lab accidentally releasing the virus into the neighbourhood. Thing is, they are all starting from the conclusion and working back to the justification when there are plenty of other explanations that are at least as plausible. Point is, this doesn't work for the US Administration. They need a conspiracy. Just saying something bad happened in China but we don't know what, lacks the necessary specificity.FF43 said:One further point about the Wuhan lab conspiracy is that epidemiology suggests the epidemic didn't necessarily originate in Hubei province. The only connection to the lab is the circumstantial evidence that the lab is very close to the meat market where the Chinese government originally said the outbreak originated. We now know for sure that the epidemic started a month or so earlier than the Wuhan market outbreak, making the lab connection moot.
There is some evidence that the epidemic may have started further south in China. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/could-covid-19-be-manmade-what-we-know-about-origins-trump-chinese-lab-coronavirus
0 -
Its survival time on surfaces is affected by the heat (more strictly the sbsolute humidity). The question is how much of the transmission is via this route.KentRising said:
I thought heat having a positive impact was debunked? That the virus could live on through temperatures well past those of a good old-fashioned English spring/summer.BigRich said:
Well there are 2 other factors that will have contribution to R falling gradually over the long term.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Assuming that the graph is accurate in portraying those impacts, lockdown could still have saved countless lives.NerysHughes said:
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much differenceMalmesbury said:
If the infection period is deemed to last about a week, then if R had stayed at 0.9 the number of new cases at the end of 8 weeks would still be about 43% of the level at the start. By contrast if R were consistently 0.7 it means that new cases would be reduced to about 6% of the original level. R was 0.9 when lockdown started and has declined to about 0.7 since then, although the decline has been gradual not immediate.
1) Some people have now had the desise and therefor wont get it again, this is the start of the heard effect,
2) The weather has been getting warmer, we don't know how big an impact this will have had, as I understand it most of this family of viruses are to some extent weather transmition affected, so this viruses may also be.0 -
Went Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Xi'an (Horrendously polluted), ChengduMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, I was in China a year earlier. Whereabouts were you?
I visited mostly Shanghai and Beijing.
Here's me in Yangshuo
1 -
I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.0
-
Interview with Anders Tegnell.
https://www.expressen.se/tv/nyheter/coronaviruset/tegnell-vi-kommer-aldrig-bli-av-med-denna-sjukdomen/0 -
Public transport was still packed, football was still on.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.isam said:
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.0 -
MaxPB said:
I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
The 7 day trend line is very linear at the moment.0 -
Mr. Pulpstar, ah, better travelled than me then. I thought the air pollution in Shanghai was bad enough.
Got up to 40C when I was there, which was rather toasty.0 -
I thought this was Paul Joseph Watson at first.Pulpstar said:
Went Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Xi'an (Horrendously polluted), ChengduMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, I was in China a year earlier. Whereabouts were you?
I visited mostly Shanghai and Beijing.
Here's me in Yangshuo0 -
Surprising not to see any comment on this German study, based on a combination of antigen and antibody testing, estimating the Infection Fatality Rate at just 0.36%:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.0 -
"Rock solid methodology" is a joke, surely?Alistair said:
Method: NHS England #covid deaths data, backdating 23 days from deaths (5 days infection => symptoms + 18 days symptoms => death), and assuming a serial interval of 5 days.Chris said:
The caption says it was calculated from "NHS England hospital deaths data." How in f*ck's name do they think they could calculate all that intricate up-and-down of Rt before 8 March, when the first death was reported on 7 March and the second on 8 March?RobD said:.
I'd want to know the methodology behind this chart before coming to that conclusion.NerysHughes said:
This graph seems to show that lockdown has not made much differenceMalmesbury said:
Pure unadulterated bullshit.
Rock solid methodology definitely not designed to produce the outcome he wanted.0 -
We can certainly agree that the "Hostile Environment" was ghastly. But we were not really discussing that.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Patel's not fooling me. Home Secretary tends to (regardless of party) go to a social conservative, its part of the role that social liberals rarely become Home Secretary.kinabalu said:
I think both Priti Patel and Theresa May are socially conservative. Boris Johnson, to the extent he has political convictions, is socially liberal. Thus in this regard Patel and May are more in touch with the Tory base and the Hard Brexit base than Johnson is. Patel is therefore fooling you but not the base. Johnson is fooling the base but not you. And neither of them, nor you, are fooling me.Philip_Thompson said:
No its not about fooling, its not all or nothing.kinabalu said:
I see. She is "more liberal than people give her credit for" albeit not a "social liberal". But is she still a social conservative? Most certainly think so. Both supporters and opponents alike think that. However it sounds like you think she is less conservative socially than people give her credit for. Is she fooling that base again, I wonder.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said Patel is a social liberal I said she is more liberal than people give her credit for.kinabalu said:"Boris" Johnson never fooled anyone. Priti Patel is a "social liberal".
These are fabulous. But don't go thinking you can never top them. That way lies decline.
I think Patel is a lot more liberal than David Cameron's Home Secretary was. She has been liberalising non-EU migration in a few areas and I can't see Patel sending "Go Home" vans into minority communities.
Do you disagree with that?
I think Patel is a marked improvement on Theresa May from Cameron's days and anything is a marked improvement on May's days so I think this government is, even with Patel, an improvement there. I'd rather not go back to the vile nonsense of sending Go Home vans into ethnic minority communities - May should have been sacked after that and should never have been party leader.
Would you like to hear my diagnosis of why you so often - at least when talking to me - end up having to deny the undeniable or trying to alter the point at issue?
You would? OK. It is quite simple. You make great play of being a "social liberal" and I think this is sincere. But few who are genuinely of that ilk are enthusiasts for Brexit. Brexit is not driven by that tradition. So to avoid this uncomfortable truth what you do is get into all sorts of contortions attempting to redefine the Brexit project as being animated by the spirit of social liberalism. Or at least as being fully compatible with it. A tough gig.0 -
Erhhh..its been commented on both on this thread and the previous.Chris said:Surprising not to see any comment on this German study, based on a combination of antigen and antibody testing, estimating the Infection Fatality Rate at just 0.36%:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.0 -
I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours3
-
They are currently reducing by 25-30% per weekMaxPB said:I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
0 -
So whats the over / under line on number of tests in todays numbers....i reckon going to be sub 75k. Still more than 50k?
Its Hancock up today, so sure he is going to get incoming about missing the target.0 -
So sorry. I had assumed the comments would have quoted the IFR, but they didn't, so my searches didn't find them.FrancisUrquhart said:
Erhhh..its been commented on both on this thread and the previous.Chris said:Surprising not to see any comment on this German study, based on a combination of antigen and antibody testing, estimating the Infection Fatality Rate at just 0.36%:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.0 -
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.JohnLilburne said:I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.0 -
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.Chris said:Surprising not to see any comment on this German study, based on a combination of antigen and antibody testing, estimating the Infection Fatality Rate at just 0.36%:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.0 -
O/T
Talking of circumstantial evidence: Gordon Park's conviction upheld.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/r-v-park-judgment-010520.pdf0 -
I believe the German study sampled from a region known to be hard hit. So again, difficult to blanket scale up nationwide.0
-
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.FrancisUrquhart said:
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.JohnLilburne said:I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.0 -
Seriously? Even if there is indeed a risk of misinterpretation by dumbasses in that situation, the dumbassery is still on those misinterpreting it (particularly when motivated by partisan dislike and without any rational reason for assuming endorsement) and so any carelessness on the part of the displayer is pretty irrelevant.Theuniondivvie said:
Who said anything about reading them? Displaying them on your bookshelf is a different thing.FrancisUrquhart said:Here's the thing, you see. Michael Gove has probably done more for Holocaust education and the Jewish community in Britain than any senior politician other than Gordon Brown. It's obvious to anyone why he would have read the work of a Holocaust denier.
Owen Jones, on the other hand, was an actual cheerleader for Jeremy Corbyn - a man described by one of his own MPs as a "racist antisemite". If Jones had his way, that same Jeremy Corbyn would be in Number Ten right now.
Twitter can be annoying, infuriating and sometimes plain pointless. But sometimes it can reveal truths. And in one stupid tweet last night, Owen Jones confirmed a truth about himself and his fellow hard left travellers: that their true ideology is hypocrisy.
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/one-stupid-tweet-by-owen-jones-confirms-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-hard-left-1.499433
I think I have a video of Triumph of The Will kicking about in a trunk somewhere. The humiliation of having a shelf full of videotapes aside, I wouldn't be sticking it in a bookcase anytime. One of my favourite books is Memoirs of an Anti-Semite; in the unlikely event of me appearing on Zoom in front of my books, I'd think hard about displaying that due to the possibility of misinterpretation by the dumbasses that infest the world.0 -
Ah yes. I remember this guy saying cumulative is the way to go but I don't see him using that in this chart when the trend is down rather than up. Apart from anything else an average of 23 days from infection to death seems generous if we are trying to pinpoint a policy change.Alistair said:
"Method: NHS England #covid deaths data, backdating 23 days from deaths (5 days infection => symptoms + 18 days symptoms => death), and assuming a serial interval of 5 days."isam said:
Tweak those parameters even a tiny bit and you get Rt going under 1 coinciding with Lockdown instead of hand washing.
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1249987166802976770
0 -
You're right about Xi'an. Fascinating, but I thought Beijing was badly polluted, until we went to Xi'an. We were there 2009.Pulpstar said:
Went Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Xi'an (Horrendously polluted), ChengduMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Pulpstar, I was in China a year earlier. Whereabouts were you?
I visited mostly Shanghai and Beijing.
Here's me in Yangshuo
/>
0 -
Why? They seem to be dropping quite consistently (albeit day of the week effect will see an increase tomorrow).MaxPB said:I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
0 -
If you follow the link I posted, you'll see this in the abstract:FrancisUrquhart said:I believe the German study sampled from a region known to be hard hit. So again, difficult to blanket scale up nationwide.
"While the number of infections in this high prevalence community is not representative for other parts of the world, the IFR calculated on the basis of the infection ratein this community can be utilizedto estimate the percentage of infected based onthe number of reported fatalities in other placeswith similar population characteristics."0 -
Being fat is bad news with regards to CV
Obesity in patients younger than 60 years is a risk factor for Covid-19 hospital admission
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa415/58183330 -
I lived in Shanghai for one year - fantastic place.
I visted Beijing - Forbidden City and Great Wall are...Great. But otherwise not up to much.
I also visited Tianjing - filthy;
Qingdao - great beer but otherwise - meh
Jiangsu, QiDong nothing to report.
Shandong area is interesting
Guangshou ok
0 -
Corona virus seems to be becoming a catch all excuse for all kinds of things.
"Yeah, but Corona" seems to be the new get out of jail free card.0 -
These numbers reflect Sunday. Expect it to be ~70k but then back well above 100k tomorrow to reflect today.FrancisUrquhart said:So whats the over / under line on number of tests in todays numbers....i reckon going to be sub 75k. Still more than 50k?
Its Hancock up today, so sure he is going to get incoming about missing the target.
Its never going to be the same on the weekend as during the week.0 -
They will tail off at some point - and other countries have seen the numbers fall to a level and remain stubbornly at that level for a while.Philip_Thompson said:
Why? They seem to be dropping quite consistently (albeit day of the week effect will see an increase tomorrow).MaxPB said:I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
But we are not seeing that yet.0 -
Its mentioned in the draft government advice for businesses to get back to work.JohnLilburne said:
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.FrancisUrquhart said:
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.JohnLilburne said:I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.0 -
Other things being equal, that's what it would suggest.rcs1000 said:
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.Chris said:Surprising not to see any comment on this German study, based on a combination of antigen and antibody testing, estimating the Infection Fatality Rate at just 0.36%:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Rather than your conclusion of 0.5-0.8% IFR, presumably based on not having looked at the paper at all!1 -
What you are saying is then is that Britons beat corona by themselves and the government's heavy handed lockdown was not really necessary.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.isam said:
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
With a much less authoritarian approach Britons might have 'locked down' in far more sensible and flexible ways than the teenagers in our government have designed, and they would be de-locking in the same way right now.
As it is, they will be left with an economy far more shattered than it needed to be and a debt mountain we will be paying off for the rest of our lives.
Why? largely because the cowards and children that run our country were terrified of upsetting an intellectually challenged media the country has deserted in droves.
2 -
Sure.NerysHughes said:
Public transport was still packed, football was still on.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.isam said:
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
But that doesn't change the point.
If 50% of transmissions were at football matches, and 50% in bars and restaurants, then you would see a 50% drop in the infection rate from people not going to bars and restaurants, even if they still went to football games.
1 -
I’m definitely a Palpatine man. Even at his most operatically villainous he clearly got sh*t done compared to others, and had a blast doing it.HYUFD said:
1 -
Germany already starting to get vending machines for masks are train stations.
I can see the shit show here in 2-3 months time when you can't get any.l, let alone from a vending machine.0 -
Do we know for certain that masks are effective, and if so, how effective?0
-
Brexit's not driven by liberalism I never claimed it was. Brexit is a big tent that isn't on a liberal or conservative axis.kinabalu said:
We can certainly agree that the "Hostile Environment" was ghastly. But we were not really discussing that.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Patel's not fooling me. Home Secretary tends to (regardless of party) go to a social conservative, its part of the role that social liberals rarely become Home Secretary.kinabalu said:
I think both Priti Patel and Theresa May are socially conservative. Boris Johnson, to the extent he has political convictions, is socially liberal. Thus in this regard Patel and May are more in touch with the Tory base and the Hard Brexit base than Johnson is. Patel is therefore fooling you but not the base. Johnson is fooling the base but not you. And neither of them, nor you, are fooling me.Philip_Thompson said:
No its not about fooling, its not all or nothing.kinabalu said:
I see. She is "more liberal than people give her credit for" albeit not a "social liberal". But is she still a social conservative? Most certainly think so. Both supporters and opponents alike think that. However it sounds like you think she is less conservative socially than people give her credit for. Is she fooling that base again, I wonder.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said Patel is a social liberal I said she is more liberal than people give her credit for.kinabalu said:"Boris" Johnson never fooled anyone. Priti Patel is a "social liberal".
These are fabulous. But don't go thinking you can never top them. That way lies decline.
I think Patel is a lot more liberal than David Cameron's Home Secretary was. She has been liberalising non-EU migration in a few areas and I can't see Patel sending "Go Home" vans into minority communities.
Do you disagree with that?
I think Patel is a marked improvement on Theresa May from Cameron's days and anything is a marked improvement on May's days so I think this government is, even with Patel, an improvement there. I'd rather not go back to the vile nonsense of sending Go Home vans into ethnic minority communities - May should have been sacked after that and should never have been party leader.
Would you like to hear my diagnosis of why you so often - at least when talking to me - end up having to deny the undeniable or trying to alter the point at issue?
You would? OK. It is quite simple. You make great play of being a "social liberal" and I think this is sincere. But few who are genuinely of that ilk are enthusiasts for Brexit. Brexit is not driven by that tradition. So to avoid this uncomfortable truth what you do is get into all sorts of contortions attempting to redefine the Brexit project as being animated by the spirit of social liberalism. Or at least as being fully compatible with it. A tough gig.0 -
Yes we are.Malmesbury said:
They will tail off at some point - and other countries have seen the numbers fall to a level and remain stubbornly at that level for a while.Philip_Thompson said:
Why? They seem to be dropping quite consistently (albeit day of the week effect will see an increase tomorrow).MaxPB said:I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
But we are not seeing that yet.
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1257308849708527618
EDIT: Sorry I may have misread your message.0 -
I think that was what my wife had late December, bilateral pneumonia but they did not manage to find out what it was over more than 5 weeks in hospital what had caused it, said it was massive inflammation and very unusual.NerysHughes said:
My guess is that it is the same here. I think its been here since November/DecemberPhilip_Thompson said:
That's quite some iceberg!FrancisUrquhart said:More than 10 times as many people in Germany have likely been infected with the coronavirus than the number of confirmed cases, researchers from the University of Bonn have concluded from a field trial in one of the worst hit towns.
0 -
Isle of Wight seeing the benefits of voting Conservative.1
-
85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..0
-
This app seems to be pretty good, the way Hancock is selling it.0
-
Sunday, right?FrancisUrquhart said:85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..
0 -
Yes, but my point was that you can't assume "other things being equal".Chris said:
Other things being equal, that's what it would suggest.rcs1000 said:
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.Chris said:Surprising not to see any comment on this German study, based on a combination of antigen and antibody testing, estimating the Infection Fatality Rate at just 0.36%:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Rather than your conclusion of 0.5-0.8% IFR, presumably based on not having looked at the paper at all!
My point was that if you have a terrible problem in care homes, then you will overestimate the number of people who've had it.
I don't think that's an outrageous, or even particularly controversial, point of view.0 -
I don't think any one is suggesting that 14 minutes and you're fine, 16 and you'll catch it. I think it's one of those broad brush approximations for where the risk lies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its mentioned in the draft government advice for businesses to get back to work.JohnLilburne said:
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.FrancisUrquhart said:
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.JohnLilburne said:I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.0 -
85k on a Sunday is mighty impressive.FrancisUrquhart said:85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..
2 -
Could not agree more,contrarian said:
What you are saying is then is that Britons beat corona by themselves and the government's heavy handed lockdown was not really necessary.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The big mistake this makes is to think that the only behavioural change in early March was that people started washing their hands. In fact, the level of concern was such that people had substantially reduced social contact well before lockdown.isam said:
Public transport, pubs and restaurants were much quieter - I'm looking back at texts now, including one on 8th March where a friend notes that the usually busy curry house he's in is empty.
What it may suggest is that the measures needed to keep the transmission rate below 1 might be less than feared (noting anything even slightly above 1 means exponential growth, but anything even slightly below means gradual decline in new infections). However, it certainly does not mean all we need to do is wash our hands, as that is NOT all we were doing in early March.
With a much less authoritarian approach Britons might have 'locked down' in far more sensible and flexible ways than the teenagers in our government have designed, and they would be de-locking in the same way right now.
As it is, they will be left with an economy far more shattered than it needed to be and a debt mountain we will be paying off for the rest of our lives.
Why? largely because the cowards and children that run our country were terrified of upsetting an intellectually challenged media the country has deserted in droves.
0 -
Not going to post many on a Sunday are we ?FrancisUrquhart said:85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..
0 -
Define masks.Gallowgate said:Do we know for certain that masks are effective, and if so, how effective?
N95 without valve: protects you and others
N95 with valve: protects you, not others
Surgical mask: pretty good protection of others, not you (although there was some field work done for masks and protection against flu about a decade ago which indicates that they may give partial protection to the wearer).
Cloth masks: too many variables to say. Some probably work pretty well at protecting others, particularly those with pockets for some sort of filter or tissue insert. Others probably provide only minor protection for others. Again, these masks do not provide protection for you.0 -
First two tests passed !0
-
My point was the trend line is stubbornly linear at the moment -Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we are.Malmesbury said:
They will tail off at some point - and other countries have seen the numbers fall to a level and remain stubbornly at that level for a while.Philip_Thompson said:
Why? They seem to be dropping quite consistently (albeit day of the week effect will see an increase tomorrow).MaxPB said:I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
But we are not seeing that yet.
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1257308849708527618
EDIT: Sorry I may have misread your message.
0 -
Yes i know. Just wondered why it came from. The 1-2m thing comes from the science of large droplets. Not heard anybody explain 15.mins things come from.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't think any one is suggesting that 14 minutes and you're fine, 16 and you'll catch it. I think it's one of those broad brush approximations for where the risk lies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Its mentioned in the draft government advice for businesses to get back to work.JohnLilburne said:
I haven't heard it since the earliest days of the outbreak. I think it was borne out to be complete cobblers.FrancisUrquhart said:
I am intrigued where this 15 mins thing came from. The 1-2m rule has some vague basis in the science of large droplet transmission.JohnLilburne said:I have wondered if social distancing contributes to lessening the severity of infection and not just numbers. It has been suggested that viral load (probably a technical term I'm using incorrectly) has a bearing on how well your immune system responds. A couple of viral particles and your immune system has time to ramp up. Lots, and it's quickly overwhelmed. So health care workers may be comparatively badly affected as they are in an environment where there is a lot of the virus present. Under social distancing if you catch it, it is likely to be from a fleeting encounter, rather than sitting in a meeting room or a pub with loads of others for several hours
But not heard anybody explain where the idea of being in somebodies company for under 15 minutes.0 -
The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
0 -
Sent same day courier via Amazon aren't they? Amazon are 7 days a week surely?TGOHF666 said:
Not going to post many on a Sunday are we ?FrancisUrquhart said:85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..
0 -
Many, many more than if the furlough wasn't there.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?1 -
I don't like the sound of this you click the app to say you have symptoms...how many twats are going to f##k with this.0
-
Reckon in a couple of weeks they will be desperate to find anyone for tests.
Def on the home straight now .0 -
# new cases seems a bit stubborn.0
-
Peak deaths in the UK (all settings) was 1,172 on April 20th.Malmesbury said:
My point was the trend line is stubbornly linear at the moment -Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we are.Malmesbury said:
They will tail off at some point - and other countries have seen the numbers fall to a level and remain stubbornly at that level for a while.Philip_Thompson said:
Why? They seem to be dropping quite consistently (albeit day of the week effect will see an increase tomorrow).MaxPB said:I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
But we are not seeing that yet.
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1257308849708527618
EDIT: Sorry I may have misread your message.0 -
It would be good if you them booked your test through the app and it automatically updated with the result.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't like the sound of this you click the app to say you have symptoms...how many twats are going to f##k with this.
0 -
Wonder if the media will pick up on van tam saying testing capacity is 108k i.e. lower than 122k number out out on Friday.0
-
And you have to touch buttons on the vending machine...FrancisUrquhart said:Germany already starting to get vending machines for masks are train stations.
I can see the shit show here in 2-3 months time when you can't get any.l, let alone from a vending machine.
0 -
Yes that was my point too. I thought you were disagreeing.Malmesbury said:
My point was the trend line is stubbornly linear at the moment -Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we are.Malmesbury said:
They will tail off at some point - and other countries have seen the numbers fall to a level and remain stubbornly at that level for a while.Philip_Thompson said:
Why? They seem to be dropping quite consistently (albeit day of the week effect will see an increase tomorrow).MaxPB said:I think the English NHS hospital death figures are going to hold at around 250 per day and then start to drop.
But we are not seeing that yet.
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1257308849708527618
EDIT: Sorry I may have misread your message.
It being linear is a very, very good thing when it goes down! Hopefully it stays linear!1 -
This is the way it has to be. Must be confirmed via test and the individual either gets a code to input or the app pings it thriugh. We can't have people being able to just set it to positive by flicking a slider.JohnLilburne said:
It would be good if you them booked your test through the app and it automatically updated with the result.FrancisUrquhart said:I don't like the sound of this you click the app to say you have symptoms...how many twats are going to f##k with this.
0 -
Testing capacity is a 108,000 tests a day . Amazing then that they managed 120,000 tests last week on d-day for the Hancock pledge !0
-
Good eveningFrancisUrquhart said:85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..
No comment is required is it.1 -
That's because of increased testing. A few days ago I wouldn't have been able to get tested for my mild symptoms. We are just picking up people who would never have been tested before. The blue bars are on the old basis of hospital admissions plus health care workers, and seems to be steadily fallingrottenborough said:# new cases seems a bit stubborn.
0 -
Of course.rcs1000 said:
Yes, but my point was that you can't assume "other things being equal".Chris said:
Other things being equal, that's what it would suggest.rcs1000 said:
Even if that (i.e. 0.36%) were true, it wouldn't necessarily imply 12% of the UK population had had it, as the figures will skewed by who catches the disease. Lots of care home residents with CV-19 means lots of deaths, means you can't just scale up.Chris said:Surprising not to see any comment on this German study, based on a combination of antigen and antibody testing, estimating the Infection Fatality Rate at just 0.36%:
https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf/$FILE/Streeck_et_al_Infection_fatality_rate_of_SARS_CoV_2_infection2.pdf
Obviously that is rather smaller than some estimates. In a UK context it would imply an infection rate of nearly 12% based on the official figure for deaths alone, and would probably suggest that at least a quarter of the population will have been infected by the end of the first wave.
Rather than your conclusion of 0.5-0.8% IFR, presumably based on not having looked at the paper at all!0 -
Guaranteed to be crap thenGallowgate said:This app seems to be pretty good, the way Hancock is selling it.
0 -
I think you'll find we'll be over 100k next 5 days in a row before we get to the weekend effect again.TGOHF666 said:
Testing streams can go off as well as come on line.nico67 said:Testing capacity is a 108,000 tests a day . Amazing then that they managed 120,000 tests last week on d-day for the Hancock pledge !
We wont need 100k tests a day soon - buggers cant find anyone to test.
108k capacity on a Sunday doesn't mean we won't get more tomorrow.0 -
Good grief.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?1 -
you are easy pleasedPhilip_Thompson said:
85k on a Sunday is mighty impressive.FrancisUrquhart said:85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..
0 -
it is what it is, what was done is done. getting them off furlough in the next two months is critical.Philip_Thompson said:
Many, many more than if the furlough wasn't there.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?1 -
A quote from a senior retail executive in the FT nails what is around the corner.
The gist is that an awful lot of the millions of furloughed people are actually unemployed.
They just don;t know it yet.
This is an addition to extra universal credit claims of an extra 1.75 to 2m
I guess you could say those are at least people that do know they are unemployed.
0 -
Socially liberal attitudes are strongly and negatively correlated to enthusiasm for Brexit. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt in countless studies, surveys and polls. To argue otherwise is so irrational it must come from a place of need. Hence my diagnosis.Philip_Thompson said:
Brexit's not driven by liberalism I never claimed it was. Brexit is a big tent that isn't on a liberal or conservative axis.kinabalu said:
We can certainly agree that the "Hostile Environment" was ghastly. But we were not really discussing that.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Patel's not fooling me. Home Secretary tends to (regardless of party) go to a social conservative, its part of the role that social liberals rarely become Home Secretary.kinabalu said:
I think both Priti Patel and Theresa May are socially conservative. Boris Johnson, to the extent he has political convictions, is socially liberal. Thus in this regard Patel and May are more in touch with the Tory base and the Hard Brexit base than Johnson is. Patel is therefore fooling you but not the base. Johnson is fooling the base but not you. And neither of them, nor you, are fooling me.Philip_Thompson said:
No its not about fooling, its not all or nothing.kinabalu said:
I see. She is "more liberal than people give her credit for" albeit not a "social liberal". But is she still a social conservative? Most certainly think so. Both supporters and opponents alike think that. However it sounds like you think she is less conservative socially than people give her credit for. Is she fooling that base again, I wonder.Philip_Thompson said:
I never said Patel is a social liberal I said she is more liberal than people give her credit for.kinabalu said:"Boris" Johnson never fooled anyone. Priti Patel is a "social liberal".
These are fabulous. But don't go thinking you can never top them. That way lies decline.
I think Patel is a lot more liberal than David Cameron's Home Secretary was. She has been liberalising non-EU migration in a few areas and I can't see Patel sending "Go Home" vans into minority communities.
Do you disagree with that?
I think Patel is a marked improvement on Theresa May from Cameron's days and anything is a marked improvement on May's days so I think this government is, even with Patel, an improvement there. I'd rather not go back to the vile nonsense of sending Go Home vans into ethnic minority communities - May should have been sacked after that and should never have been party leader.
Would you like to hear my diagnosis of why you so often - at least when talking to me - end up having to deny the undeniable or trying to alter the point at issue?
You would? OK. It is quite simple. You make great play of being a "social liberal" and I think this is sincere. But few who are genuinely of that ilk are enthusiasts for Brexit. Brexit is not driven by that tradition. So to avoid this uncomfortable truth what you do is get into all sorts of contortions attempting to redefine the Brexit project as being animated by the spirit of social liberalism. Or at least as being fully compatible with it. A tough gig.
I predict a similar thing will happen with you and a fair few other Conservative posters when the time comes for us to take a hard look at Sunak's proposals for tacking the post corona public finances. There will be a need to support what he will do and at the same time maintain that Osborne was right in what he did. Some acrobatic contortions will ensue.0 -
Own up, which one of you did it
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1257329572124798977
Shadsy is openly mocking people takin this bet.2 -
I am. More done on a Sunday than we had done any day until 5 days ago.malcolmg said:
you are easy pleasedPhilip_Thompson said:
85k on a Sunday is mighty impressive.FrancisUrquhart said:85k tests...Big John incoming in 5...4...3....2...1..
We'll see what tomorrow brings. I expect it to be a new record amount.0 -
I reckon something like 1m will be made redundant and maybe another million gig workers will find their contracts at an end. Which compared with the 30m jobs lost in the US is an incredibly good result.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?3 -
That's actually a problem for the companies who have furloughed those people as one of the original criteria of the scheme was that there is a job to go back to.contrarian said:A quote from a senior retail executive in the FT nails what is around the corner.
The gist is that an awful lot of the millions of furloughed people are actually unemployed.
They just don;t know it yet.
This is an addition to extra universal credit claims of an extra 1.75 to 2m0 -
Lots of civil servants on paid special leave. I'm now working from home but after clearing about a week's backlog I haven't had much to do.Stocky said:
Good grief.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?0 -
No worries.FrancisUrquhart said:Wonder if the media will pick up on van tam saying testing capacity is 108k i.e. lower than 122k number out out on Friday.
Hancock met his target (he says) so he has moved on.
We should now move onto test track and trace
0 -
Why?blairf said:
it is what it is, what was done is done. getting them off furlough in the next two months is critical.Philip_Thompson said:
Many, many more than if the furlough wasn't there.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
There's talk of 3 months potentially until social distancing ends in some businesses. Why would you end furlough in 2 months then end restrictions in 3?
Furlough should end once we are back to normal.0 -
In Sheffield the staff at the recycling centres have been redeployed to the bin collection staff as the latter some of them have to self isolate.Stocky said:
Good grief.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?0 -
What odds should Trump be to win the popular vote? You can lay him at 4.8 with Bf (thin market admittedly). He`s got next to no chance has he?0
-
Ok, fair play then.TheScreamingEagles said:
In Sheffield the staff at the recycling centres have been redeployed to the bin collection staff as the latter some of them have to self isolate.Stocky said:
Good grief.contrarian said:The numbers on workers furloughed from HRMC are staggering. 6.3 million at a cost of GBP8bn.
How many of those are going to walk back into work when that nice Mr Sunak takes his subsidies away?
Our local recyling centre (aka the tip) is closed. Why? The advice was to carry on working, at home if possible. I assume the council employees have been furloughed. I`m betting at 100% not 80%. Are councils claiming the 80% from central government funds?0 -
It's a Government IT project. It's always a fair bet it won't work.eek said:
It's rare that I agree with Toby but I strongly suspect it won't.rottenborough said:https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Is covering the NHS app this afternoon on his header (as well as other virus stuff).
Good questions being asked about a 'honeypot' centralised database vs Apple/Google.
Toby questions whether it will even work.
If there were a company doing something similar and we could buy their app and expand it, that would give me a bit more confidence.1
