politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s National Theatre at Home re-run of the The House is

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

First like the UK in all sorts of comparison tables.

But at least groups of six can soon travel to the Scottish border, to moon house-bound Scots....

You are behind the times on Scotland as ever Mark ,

Andy_Cooke said:

Black_Rook said:

Carnyx said:

TGOHF666 said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

First like the UK in all sorts of comparison tables.

But at least groups of six can soon travel to the Scottish border, to moon house-bound Scots....

I assume you lads involved in this high minded expression of liberty will be taking a detour to Barnard Castle to test your eyesight, just to make sure you can tell your arses from your elbows.

It's also curious how he assumes that things will necessarily be worse in Scotland. He just comes out with it, he can't help himself. Though the moths are nice.

Given that construction sites are not yet open in Scotland and can only open on Monday for site preparation with no date for retail to open - its not without foundation.

Some people will feel that that is actually better/safer - given that Ro average in England is no better than Scotland, 0.82 wasn't it, under the current rules.

The R number is (a) an educated guess and (b) in all likelihood being grossly distorted by hospitals and care homes. The rate of transmission in the wider community is probably a very long way from 1, which is why the deaths and hospitalisations are still trickling steadily downwards - despite both the gradual easing of the official lockdown, and the likelihood that large numbers of people have been meeting up with friends and family since at least the VE Day bank holiday if not before.

Will this continue? I think we'll have a better idea by July, after the mass re-opening of the shops, but I am feeling cautiously optimistic for a change. Perhaps the theories about much of the population having reduced or zero susceptibility to the virus will turn out to be true?

I did find that theory (that many of us have a natural immunity, possibly linked to repeated exposure to the common cold coronaviruses) plausible and one of those that really attracted me.
Of course, the "and actually the death rate is one in ten thousand" was obvious mince - even one in one thousand was obviously overoptimistic, but the core idea of people throwing it off without needing to generate antibodies (possibly linked with mild doses) seemed possible.

Unfortunately, there's recently been a full-on study checking out everyone who's had even mild symptoms in a hospital in France here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20101832v2

Everyone who has had it at all, even mildly or asymptomatically, has produced antibodies(*). It's not very plausible to go from that finding to the hoped-for possibility that many of us are naturally immune, sadly. Unless some very clear evidence to the contrary comes up, of course.

(*) - Actually, there was one out of 160 who didn't register antibodies. Given the 99.4% illness-to-antibodies result, it's vastly more likely that this was a double false negative than an actual non-antibody-immunity. Even if not, a sub-one-percent natural immunity rate isn't that helpful overall.

That everyone who has had it has antibodies sounds like good news to me?

Maybe I'm missing something obvious but if some people are naturally immune for whatever reason then won't they fall under the category of people who haven't had it at all?

williamglenn said:

The second part of Cummings' father-in-law's thoughts on genetics: "You can't make a pekinese into a pit bull terrier."

https://twitter.com/Swanswan0307/status/1266024908599017472

What has the father in law got to do with anything? Why is old people's thoughts relevant?

I wouldn't want to be judged by everything my father or grandfather had ever said.

Philip_Thompson said:

TGOHF666 said:

Dentists to reopen on 8th of June.

A lot of people across the country will think "thank goodness" and be squirming at that simultaneously.

You know the drill...

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

The second part of Cummings' father-in-law's thoughts on genetics: "You can't make a pekinese into a pit bull terrier."

https://twitter.com/Swanswan0307/status/1266024908599017472

What has the father in law got to do with anything? Why is old people's thoughts relevant?

I wouldn't want to be judged by everything my father or grandfather had ever said.

Cummings himself thinks that "almost everything written by MPs about ‘social mobility’ is junk" and they should make policy based on genetic data science instead.

https://dominiccummings.com/2019/02/21/on-the-referendum-29-genetics-genomics-predictions-the-gretzky-game-a-chance-for-britain-to-help-the-world/

noneoftheabove said:

Id imagine most Labour fans would be quite happy to have more power and attention and scrutiny that comes with it. Are you wanting the right to have less power, or just keep the power but drop the scrutiny?

I don't remember the Blair years to have involved much scrutiny. If we are talking power and responsibility; Alistair Campbell's actions probably helped kill many thousands of people. That will probably top moving into your parents granny flat when he gets to the pearly gates.

What I really want, to use a cliche, for people to play the ball not the man.

williamglenn said:

The second part of Cummings' father-in-law's thoughts on genetics: "You can't make a pekinese into a pit bull terrier."

https://twitter.com/Swanswan0307/status/1266024908599017472

Just going on appearance, they seem to have made some attempt to make Dom into a pekinese.

Edit: 'Such anatomical abnormalities make brachycephalic breeds very prone to eye problems'

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Boris dropped a clanger at the press conference...BBQs are now ok...there is no way everybody will be there maintaining social distance, carefully wiping down all plates and.glasses and when you go for a whizz INSIDE..

Oh give over, people are already doing this and won't live like Trappist Monks forever.

Sensible to keep relaxing lockdown as sensibly as possible and if the advice is that outdoors is better than indoors then better to have people outside in each others gardens enjoying the summer and having a barbecue than to be inside shopping complexes because they're open and you're bored out of your mind and shopping is a leisure activity permitted.

If plates, glasses and social distancing from your friends while you go inside for a whizz are your greatest risks then you're doing well - I'm sure browsing the supermarket carries greater risk.

I met someone today in a local supermarket who prior to today hadn’t been out for twelve weeks.

She lives alone.

She said life had not been pleasant.

Wow that's hardcore. Lockdown needs relaxing for people like that.

That is the way a lot of older people have been interpreting lockdown. Your airy repeated assertion that everyone just needs to do what’s right for you ignores this. People like this lady have really been suffering. And then they hear the Prime Minister’s chief adviser has been swanning around the country.

Try imagining how they feel about that news.

Black_Rook said:

Of course, if everyone is susceptible to infection then that just brings us back to the question of why it is that the deaths and hospitalisations are continuing to trend downwards, even though (i) the easing of lockdown measures has commenced and (ii) there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, along with the actual ongoing increases in road traffic, to suggest that people are travelling more (and, consequently, that social contacts have in all likelihood increased.) It presumably isn't some magical effect caused by the nice weather, because it's not as if April was cold and wet.

Because:

1. Relaxing is not the same as abandoning. There aren't hundreds of thousands of people travelling in crowded tubes every day. Bars and restaurants aren't open.

2. Even if you abandoned all the restrictions, the time lag between infection and severe symptoms is quite long - often seven days before noticeable ones, and two weeks before ones requiring hospitalistion.

williamglenn said:

The second part of Cummings' father-in-law's thoughts on genetics: "You can't make a pekinese into a pit bull terrier."

https://twitter.com/Swanswan0307/status/1266024908599017472

That's very fascinating and all, but it might be that my (late) father-in-law had some very odd views on a number of different subjects.

And you know what that would say about my views?

Absolutely nothing.

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

Most people in the UK who had CV-19, particularly a month or so ago, will never have been diagnosed.

So all this really shows is which countries ramped up testing early, and which ramped it up late.

As an aside, there's an increasing amount of evidence that severe CV-19 cases correlate strongly with vitamin D deficiency. So, sunny places (and places in summer) are likely to see lower CFRs.

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates

A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

Don't forget Russia's not at all suspicious 1.0%

Apologies for the Daily Mail link but this sort of risk segmentation model is what I’ve been banging on about on PB for a while.

Granted, it’s not popular, but still with a post perhaps?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366371/Peoples-Covid-19-risk-scored-scale-1-5.html

Interesting article on Unherd from someone who used to be on this site a lot but has disappeared recently. Here it is again.

https://unherd.com/2020/05/why-we-remember-wars-but-forget-plagues/

AlastairMeeks said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Boris dropped a clanger at the press conference...BBQs are now ok...there is no way everybody will be there maintaining social distance, carefully wiping down all plates and.glasses and when you go for a whizz INSIDE..

Oh give over, people are already doing this and won't live like Trappist Monks forever.

Sensible to keep relaxing lockdown as sensibly as possible and if the advice is that outdoors is better than indoors then better to have people outside in each others gardens enjoying the summer and having a barbecue than to be inside shopping complexes because they're open and you're bored out of your mind and shopping is a leisure activity permitted.

If plates, glasses and social distancing from your friends while you go inside for a whizz are your greatest risks then you're doing well - I'm sure browsing the supermarket carries greater risk.

I met someone today in a local supermarket who prior to today hadn’t been out for twelve weeks.

She lives alone.

She said life had not been pleasant.

Wow that's hardcore. Lockdown needs relaxing for people like that.

That is the way a lot of older people have been interpreting lockdown. Your airy repeated assertion that everyone just needs to do what’s right for you ignores this. People like this lady have really been suffering. And then they hear the Prime Minister’s chief adviser has been swanning around the country.

Try imagining how they feel about that news.

You miss my point. If people have been interpreting it that way then fair enough for them. They're more at risk so makes sense to do that. Which matches my thoughts on using personal judgement.

Doesn't mean everyone has to be the same.

Theuniondivvie said:

Oh dear, Grandmaster of the Lodge Flashy found to be unsuited to decent company again?

The ban hammer cometh for one of The People

Anabobazina said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Oh dear, Grandmaster of the Lodge Flashy found to be unsuited to decent company again?

The ban hammer cometh for one of The People

He’s taking his daily form of exorcise.

Andy_JS said:

Interesting article on Unherd from someone who used to be on this site a lot but has disappeared recently. Here it is again.

https://unherd.com/2020/05/why-we-remember-wars-but-forget-plagues/

Based in London says the by-line.

Not Penarth.

noneoftheabove said:

Rexel56 said:

Bit puzzled... watched the press briefing but didn’t hear any mention of the alert level being dropped from 4 to 3, which the PM said last night they would be looking at today. Did I miss that being announced? I did miss part of the response to Preston on the 2m separation so it could have been then.

I could be wrong but dont think it was explicitly mentioned in terms of alert level 3, but he did say the 5 conditions to get there are now met.

Thanks for the reply, but the five tests were applied to the decision whether step 2 of the easing of lockdown can happen on June 1st, i.e. the date pencilled in when step 1 was taken earlier in May. The PM was quite clear last night that a decision was to be taken on whether we are now at alert level 3 - as nothing was said, we can only assume that we remain at alert level 4.

It’s also puzzling that apparently test 3. has been met, that the rate of infection is decreasing. At step 1, this was shown as being measured by R and the graph used to illustrate when step 2 would happen suggested an R about half that of what it was when step 1 was taken. In fact, R is now higher than it was then: 0.7-0.9 as opposed to 0.5-0.9 at the time of step 1. Today, test 3 was suddenly expressed in terms of daily positive tests.

So, one can only conclude that a bit of a fudge has gone on. The tests for step 2 have not been fully met and the date of June 1st was the overriding priority for some reason. This is underlined by a partial, untested test and trace system being declared open.

It’s disappointing that the journalists didn’t ask questions about either the lack of announcement on the alert level or the fudging if test 3.

Philip_Thompson said:

eadric said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Am I permitted to ask why TGOHF has been banned? I've not seen anything odd unless its been deleted. Apologies if that question isn't permitted.

He used an N word which isn't as bad as THE N word but is still quite bad. I think

Naughty.

No idea what word you're talking about but silly boy.

Probably not that one. Otherwise, goodbye.

Rexel56 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Rexel56 said:

Bit puzzled... watched the press briefing but didn’t hear any mention of the alert level being dropped from 4 to 3, which the PM said last night they would be looking at today. Did I miss that being announced? I did miss part of the response to Preston on the 2m separation so it could have been then.

I could be wrong but dont think it was explicitly mentioned in terms of alert level 3, but he did say the 5 conditions to get there are now met.

Thanks for the reply, but the five tests were applied to the decision whether step 2 of the easing of lockdown can happen on June 1st, i.e. the date pencilled in when step 1 was taken earlier in May. The PM was quite clear last night that a decision was to be taken on whether we are now at alert level 3 - as nothing was said, we can only assume that we remain at alert level 4.

It’s also puzzling that apparently test 3. has been met, that the rate of infection is decreasing. At step 1, this was shown as being measured by R and the graph used to illustrate when step 2 would happen suggested an R about half that of what it was when step 1 was taken. In fact, R is now higher than it was then: 0.7-0.9 as opposed to 0.5-0.9 at the time of step 1. Today, test 3 was suddenly expressed in terms of daily positive tests.

So, one can only conclude that a bit of a fudge has gone on. The tests for step 3 have not been fully met and the date of June 1st was the overriding priority for some reason. This is underlined by a partial, untested test and trace system being declared open.

It’s disappointing that the journalists didn’t ask questions about either the lack of announcement on the alert level or the fudging if test 3.

I think you've misunderstood R and Test 3.

Hypothetically which has the higher rate of infection:
Scenario A: R of 0.7 with 20,000 active cases
Scenario B: R of 0.8 with 5,000 active cases

Philip_Thompson said:

TGOHF666 said:

Dentists to reopen on 8th of June.

A lot of people across the country will think "thank goodness" and be squirming at that simultaneously.

Indeed. I have had a little bit of pain from a back tooth for a couple of days now and have been praying to the Gods that it is nothing because the dentists are Closed Until Further Notice.

rcs1000 said:

eadric said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Am I permitted to ask why TGOHF has been banned? I've not seen anything odd unless its been deleted. Apologies if that question isn't permitted.

He used an N word which isn't as bad as THE N word but is still quite bad. I think

Just as a matter of interest, what was the word?

I think it was ninny.

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Everyone ready for the final clap?

Well supported tonight here.

I think it will be the last time mind.

A few of my neighbours seemed irritated at the idea of it being the final one, saying its not over yet.

eadric said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eadric said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

The second part of Cummings' father-in-law's thoughts on genetics: "You can't make a pekinese into a pit bull terrier."

https://twitter.com/Swanswan0307/status/1266024908599017472

What has the father in law got to do with anything? Why is old people's thoughts relevant?

I wouldn't want to be judged by everything my father or grandfather had ever said.

He might be an odious posho but he's also not entirely wrong. Genes do count. Otherwise we wouldn't have horse-breeders or crop improvers.

A horse descended from Whistlejacket, Seabiscuit or Red Rum is a better bet for greatness than one that isn't.

Ahem...can't speak for Whistlejacket or even Seabiscuit but most unlikely Red Rum would have any descendants.

Was he gay?

I'm not sure if he had the choice when the men in brown coats, big thermos and electric prods came along.

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

Rexel56 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Rexel56 said:

Bit puzzled... watched the press briefing but didn’t hear any mention of the alert level being dropped from 4 to 3, which the PM said last night they would be looking at today. Did I miss that being announced? I did miss part of the response to Preston on the 2m separation so it could have been then.

I could be wrong but dont think it was explicitly mentioned in terms of alert level 3, but he did say the 5 conditions to get there are now met.

Thanks for the reply, but the five tests were applied to the decision whether step 2 of the easing of lockdown can happen on June 1st, i.e. the date pencilled in when step 1 was taken earlier in May. The PM was quite clear last night that a decision was to be taken on whether we are now at alert level 3 - as nothing was said, we can only assume that we remain at alert level 4.

It’s also puzzling that apparently test 3. has been met, that the rate of infection is decreasing. At step 1, this was shown as being measured by R and the graph used to illustrate when step 2 would happen suggested an R about half that of what it was when step 1 was taken. In fact, R is now higher than it was then: 0.7-0.9 as opposed to 0.5-0.9 at the time of step 1. Today, test 3 was suddenly expressed in terms of daily positive tests.

So, one can only conclude that a bit of a fudge has gone on. The tests for step 3 have not been fully met and the date of June 1st was the overriding priority for some reason. This is underlined by a partial, untested test and trace system being declared open.

It’s disappointing that the journalists didn’t ask questions about either the lack of announcement on the alert level or the fudging if test 3.

The tests lack objective thresholds and the measurements are only approximate anyway. The tests are met if Johnson says they are.

1. The NHS can cope? Sure. The NHS has to cope, whatever.
2. Sustained and consistent fall in the death rate? It has fallen significantly. May not be falling any more. If the test was met two weeks ago, it ins't more "met" today
3. Rate of infection decreasing to 'manageable levels'. Same as (1). Whatever the level we have to manage.
4. Ensuring supply of tests and PPE can meet future demand. Although not quantified, this is probably OK
5. Confident any adjustments would not risk a second peak that would overwhelm the NHS. This was watered down from "not risk a second peak". The former definition would be measurable, at least in retrospect.

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

The 1.3% probably reflects the extent to which CV-19 got into care homes.

Anabobazina said:

Apologies for the Daily Mail link but this sort of risk segmentation model is what I’ve been banging on about on PB for a while.

Granted, it’s not popular, but still with a post perhaps?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366371/Peoples-Covid-19-risk-scored-scale-1-5.html

The thing about risk segmentation that most concerns me is that it seems to gloss over the infecting-other-people bit to focus exclusively on the whats-the-risk-to-this-single-person bit.

If my daughters are in Risk Category 5 (lowest risk) and I'm in Risk Category 3 and my Mum's in Risk Category 1... how does that work?

Or say, I'm in Risk Category 4 or 5 - that just means I'm okay Jack, doesn't it? I can still pick it up and infect people, and if my category has an effective R of, say, 2 or so, it's going to rip through the Risk Category 4 or 5's like wildfire. And anyone in contact with them gets infected as well, and the virus is not just endemic at a low level, but burning brightly with a source of however-many-million Typhoid Marys around.

Unless Risk Segmentation comes with near-perfect social segmentation (so everyone in Risk Category 3 MUST be perfectly separated from everyone in Risk Category 4 (who will be a greater source of the disease) AND Risk Category 2 (who will be more vulnerable) and that segmentation must be kept up permanently. You can't share a house, or a car, or meet them at work (eg in care homes), or even come into contact with them in shops.

It does look totally unworkable from here. I can see the attraction, and if it wasn't for the being-able-to-infect-everyone-else bit of the issue, it'd be great. But it's sort of like providing excellent crumple zones and airbags to people to go drink-driving: at the end of the day, we're going to be more worried about the poor bastards that are going to get hit by the well-protected drunk driver.

rcs1000 said:

eadric said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Am I permitted to ask why TGOHF has been banned? I've not seen anything odd unless its been deleted. Apologies if that question isn't permitted.

He used an N word which isn't as bad as THE N word but is still quite bad. I think

Just as a matter of interest, what was the word?

News?
National unity government?

rcs1000 said:

Socky said:

noneoftheabove said:

So if a Labour local parish councillor breaks the rules it should be on newsnight because they are all elected politicians? Its a view but not one anyone is going to believe you seriously hold.

The MSM tends to report it front and centre when minor figures on the right do stupid things.

DC isn't even a politician, he is an employee.

There is a lot of focus on DC for the same reason that there was a lot of focus on Steve Bannon in the US, and on Timothy and Fiona in the old days with Ms May. Go back to the 1960s, and you'll find there was an awful lot of attention paid to Marcia Williams.

Basically the key advisors to the PM (or President) have always been news.

Or, going further back, Thomas Cromwell. Perhaps Hilary Mantel will write a trilogy on DC next.

eadric said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eadric said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

The second part of Cummings' father-in-law's thoughts on genetics: "You can't make a pekinese into a pit bull terrier."

https://twitter.com/Swanswan0307/status/1266024908599017472

What has the father in law got to do with anything? Why is old people's thoughts relevant?

I wouldn't want to be judged by everything my father or grandfather had ever said.

He might be an odious posho but he's also not entirely wrong. Genes do count. Otherwise we wouldn't have horse-breeders or crop improvers.

A horse descended from Whistlejacket, Seabiscuit or Red Rum is a better bet for greatness than one that isn't.

Ahem...can't speak for Whistlejacket or even Seabiscuit but most unlikely Red Rum would have any descendants.

Was he gay?

Sorry Eadric, I thought you would have known enough about the sport to know that jumpers are usually gelded. This is mainly because they are not fast enough to have any stud value, but also because of the risk of testicles getting caught on the fence.

Now you know, but probably wished you didn't.

eadric said:

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

1.3% is pretty high if this damn bug is going to infect, say, 50% of us in the end

Suggests about 40m dead globally, so something similar to Spanish Flu in outright scale

On that basis, if R0=2.4, the cost of herd immunity (if such a thing were to exist) would be half a million dead.

Chris said:

eadric said:

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

1.3% is pretty high if this damn bug is going to infect, say, 50% of us in the end

Suggests about 40m dead globally, so something similar to Spanish Flu in outright scale

On that basis, if R0=2.4, the cost of herd immunity (if such a thing were to exist) would be half a million dead.

That seems consistent with the worst case scenario described by Boris in his broadcast.

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

I think that's the infection fatality rate (IFR), not the case fatality rate (CFR). It's possible serology tests generate a sizeable number of false negatives (it says you are free of the infection when you have it), which will depress the implied IFR somewhat.

CFR kicks in after diagnosis, I think

Philip_Thompson said:

Rexel56 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Rexel56 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Rexel56 said:

Bit puzzled... watched the press briefing but didn’t hear any mention of the alert level being dropped from 4 to 3, which the PM said last night they would be looking at today. Did I miss that being announced? I did miss part of the response to Preston on the 2m separation so it could have been then.

I could be wrong but dont think it was explicitly mentioned in terms of alert level 3, but he did say the 5 conditions to get there are now met.

Thanks for the reply, but the five tests were applied to the decision whether step 2 of the easing of lockdown can happen on June 1st, i.e. the date pencilled in when step 1 was taken earlier in May. The PM was quite clear last night that a decision was to be taken on whether we are now at alert level 3 - as nothing was said, we can only assume that we remain at alert level 4.

It’s also puzzling that apparently test 3. has been met, that the rate of infection is decreasing. At step 1, this was shown as being measured by R and the graph used to illustrate when step 2 would happen suggested an R about half that of what it was when step 1 was taken. In fact, R is now higher than it was then: 0.7-0.9 as opposed to 0.5-0.9 at the time of step 1. Today, test 3 was suddenly expressed in terms of daily positive tests.

So, one can only conclude that a bit of a fudge has gone on. The tests for step 3 have not been fully met and the date of June 1st was the overriding priority for some reason. This is underlined by a partial, untested test and trace system being declared open.

It’s disappointing that the journalists didn’t ask questions about either the lack of announcement on the alert level or the fudging if test 3.

I think you've misunderstood R and Test 3.

Hypothetically which has the higher rate of infection:
Scenario A: R of 0.7 with 20,000 active cases
Scenario B: R of 0.8 with 5,000 active cases

Ah yes, my error, I see that the graph illustrating the step-by-step approach in the government plan has caseload on the y axis, it confused me by labelling the trend line as R more than 1 (coloured red) and R less than 1 (coloured blue) leading me to think that the y axis was indeed R. Thank you for the clarification. Can you clarify whether we are at alert level four or three?

I don't know. I missed the press conference and I'm not sure if it was announced. Sounds like 3.

It wasn’t announced and I can’t find where on .gov the current level is shown.

Rexel56 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Rexel56 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Rexel56 said:

Bit puzzled... watched the press briefing but didn’t hear any mention of the alert level being dropped from 4 to 3, which the PM said last night they would be looking at today. Did I miss that being announced? I did miss part of the response to Preston on the 2m separation so it could have been then.

I could be wrong but dont think it was explicitly mentioned in terms of alert level 3, but he did say the 5 conditions to get there are now met.

Thanks for the reply, but the five tests were applied to the decision whether step 2 of the easing of lockdown can happen on June 1st, i.e. the date pencilled in when step 1 was taken earlier in May. The PM was quite clear last night that a decision was to be taken on whether we are now at alert level 3 - as nothing was said, we can only assume that we remain at alert level 4.

It’s also puzzling that apparently test 3. has been met, that the rate of infection is decreasing. At step 1, this was shown as being measured by R and the graph used to illustrate when step 2 would happen suggested an R about half that of what it was when step 1 was taken. In fact, R is now higher than it was then: 0.7-0.9 as opposed to 0.5-0.9 at the time of step 1. Today, test 3 was suddenly expressed in terms of daily positive tests.

So, one can only conclude that a bit of a fudge has gone on. The tests for step 3 have not been fully met and the date of June 1st was the overriding priority for some reason. This is underlined by a partial, untested test and trace system being declared open.

It’s disappointing that the journalists didn’t ask questions about either the lack of announcement on the alert level or the fudging if test 3.

I think you've misunderstood R and Test 3.

Hypothetically which has the higher rate of infection:
Scenario A: R of 0.7 with 20,000 active cases
Scenario B: R of 0.8 with 5,000 active cases

Ah yes, my error, I see that the graph illustrating the step-by-step approach in the government plan has caseload on the y axis, it confused me by labelling the trend line as R more than 1 (coloured red) and R less than 1 (coloured blue) leading me to think that the y axis was indeed R. Thank you for the clarification. Can you clarify whether we are at alert level four or three?

This is a fundamental point. The government is now apparently fitting the alert level to the relaxations, not vice versa. They are no longer following their own announced policy framework.

rcs1000 said:

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

The 1.3% probably reflects the extent to which CV-19 got into care homes.

I'm sure that people will be enquiring carefully into what exactly the fatality rate in the UK reflects for the next few years.

IshmaelZ said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eadric said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eadric said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

The second part of Cummings' father-in-law's thoughts on genetics: "You can't make a pekinese into a pit bull terrier."

https://twitter.com/Swanswan0307/status/1266024908599017472

What has the father in law got to do with anything? Why is old people's thoughts relevant?

I wouldn't want to be judged by everything my father or grandfather had ever said.

He might be an odious posho but he's also not entirely wrong. Genes do count. Otherwise we wouldn't have horse-breeders or crop improvers.

A horse descended from Whistlejacket, Seabiscuit or Red Rum is a better bet for greatness than one that isn't.

Ahem...can't speak for Whistlejacket or even Seabiscuit but most unlikely Red Rum would have any descendants.

Was he gay?

Sorry Eadric, I thought you would have known enough about the sport to know that jumpers are usually gelded. This is mainly because they are not fast enough to have any stud value, but also because of the risk of testicles getting caught on the fence.

Now you know, but probably wished you didn't.

Talking of horses did you know about Stoney Crossing?
3rd to Arkle and Mill House in the Cheltenham Gold Cup, and then 6th at Badminton in the same year? I think this is the single most extraordinary fact I have ever heard.

Didn't know that. Not unusual for ex-chasers to go eventing after retirement from NH (I think Kauto Star did) but never heard of them doing both in the same season. That might change now though with Cross-Country becoming a bigger part of the NH programme.

eadric said:

Foxy said:

eadric said:

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

1.3% is pretty high if this damn bug is going to infect, say, 50% of us in the end

Suggests about 40m dead globally, so something similar to Spanish Flu in outright scale

That is pretty much the overall CFR that we have known from early Feb, so seems entirely plausible to me. It is not the only early figure to be vindicated.

Yes, from the first days of Wuhan people were theorising a CFR of ~1%.

It's odd. In some ways this disease is completely novel and terrifyingly weird, yet on the other hand we have had quite a good grasp on its potentialities, from the off.

For China outside Hubei province, the figure was about 1%. In the West the population is older. At one stage I tried to adjust some of the Chinese figures for the Italian age profile, and came out with 2.3%. But on the other hand the Chinese figures seem to have excluded asymptomatic cases, which appear to be something like 50%. That reasoning would end up with 1.1-1.2%, so I find 1.3% very believable.

IshmaelZ said:

Foxy said:

eadric said:

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

1.3% is pretty high if this damn bug is going to infect, say, 50% of us in the end

Suggests about 40m dead globally, so something similar to Spanish Flu in outright scale

That is pretty much the overall CFR that we have known from early Feb, so seems entirely plausible to me. It is not the only early figure to be vindicated.

Diamond Princess has been stuck for ages on 13 dead, 4 in critical condition. If we take that at face value it gives a range (out of 712) of 1.8-2.3% depending on the outcome for the 4.

It's been argued that the fatality rate on the Diamond Princess was increased by an older than average population. John Ioannidis somehow came up with a figure of 0.125% (!) by supposedly correcting that for the age profile of the US population, but didn't publish his calculations (perhaps because he'd lost the envelope). Someone else did publish some calculations and IIRC came up with a figure around 1%.

Anabobazina said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Anabobazina said:

Apologies for the Daily Mail link but this sort of risk segmentation model is what I’ve been banging on about on PB for a while.

Granted, it’s not popular, but still with a post perhaps?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366371/Peoples-Covid-19-risk-scored-scale-1-5.html

The thing about risk segmentation that most concerns me is that it seems to gloss over the infecting-other-people bit to focus exclusively on the whats-the-risk-to-this-single-person bit.

If my daughters are in Risk Category 5 (lowest risk) and I'm in Risk Category 3 and my Mum's in Risk Category 1... how does that work?

Or say, I'm in Risk Category 4 or 5 - that just means I'm okay Jack, doesn't it? I can still pick it up and infect people, and if my category has an effective R of, say, 2 or so, it's going to rip through the Risk Category 4 or 5's like wildfire. And anyone in contact with them gets infected as well, and the virus is not just endemic at a low level, but burning brightly with a source of however-many-million Typhoid Marys around.

Unless Risk Segmentation comes with near-perfect social segmentation (so everyone in Risk Category 3 MUST be perfectly separated from everyone in Risk Category 4 (who will be a greater source of the disease) AND Risk Category 2 (who will be more vulnerable) and that segmentation must be kept up permanently. You can't share a house, or a car, or meet them at work (eg in care homes), or even come into contact with them in shops.

It does look totally unworkable from here. I can see the attraction, and if it wasn't for the being-able-to-infect-everyone-else bit of the issue, it'd be great. But it's sort of like providing excellent crumple zones and airbags to people to go drink-driving: at the end of the day, we're going to be more worried about the poor bastards that are going to get hit by the well-protected drunk driver.

I haven’t seen my parents in months. They are 70+ , hence shielded. Surely this is how it works?

I see my wife and daughter every day. My wife is on the shielding list.

How does that segmentation work?

Alistair said:

Anabobazina said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Anabobazina said:

Apologies for the Daily Mail link but this sort of risk segmentation model is what I’ve been banging on about on PB for a while.

Granted, it’s not popular, but still with a post perhaps?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366371/Peoples-Covid-19-risk-scored-scale-1-5.html

The thing about risk segmentation that most concerns me is that it seems to gloss over the infecting-other-people bit to focus exclusively on the whats-the-risk-to-this-single-person bit.

If my daughters are in Risk Category 5 (lowest risk) and I'm in Risk Category 3 and my Mum's in Risk Category 1... how does that work?

Or say, I'm in Risk Category 4 or 5 - that just means I'm okay Jack, doesn't it? I can still pick it up and infect people, and if my category has an effective R of, say, 2 or so, it's going to rip through the Risk Category 4 or 5's like wildfire. And anyone in contact with them gets infected as well, and the virus is not just endemic at a low level, but burning brightly with a source of however-many-million Typhoid Marys around.

Unless Risk Segmentation comes with near-perfect social segmentation (so everyone in Risk Category 3 MUST be perfectly separated from everyone in Risk Category 4 (who will be a greater source of the disease) AND Risk Category 2 (who will be more vulnerable) and that segmentation must be kept up permanently. You can't share a house, or a car, or meet them at work (eg in care homes), or even come into contact with them in shops.

It does look totally unworkable from here. I can see the attraction, and if it wasn't for the being-able-to-infect-everyone-else bit of the issue, it'd be great. But it's sort of like providing excellent crumple zones and airbags to people to go drink-driving: at the end of the day, we're going to be more worried about the poor bastards that are going to get hit by the well-protected drunk driver.

I haven’t seen my parents in months. They are 70+ , hence shielded. Surely this is how it works?

I see my wife and daughter every day. My wife is on the shielding list.

How does that segmentation work?

I don’t know exactly how this particular model works, as I’ve only seen the Mail story (I know, I know).

But Dr David Katz’ risk segmentation model would put you in a high(er) risk category because you are in the nuclear family of someone who needs shielding.

RobD said:

Chris said:

eadric said:

Chris said:

eadric said:

A thing I have noticed. Case Fatality Rates


A lot of countries are now doing a LOT of testing, so the CFR is getting more accurate, and it is high

USA has a CFR of 5.8%

Brazil has a CFR of 6.2%

Spain has a CFR of 9.5%

Italy has a CFR of 14.3%

France has a CFR of 15.6%

UK has a CFR of 14.1%

At the moment, in many of the biggest countries in the western world, if you get diagnosed positive with covid-19 you have a 1 in 6 to a 1 in 18 likelihood of dying. Quite scary

If you use the new ONS antibody figure and the excess mortality number, it comes out to about 1.3% for the UK, I think.

That is a bit higher than I had been expecting, but seems believable.

1.3% is pretty high if this damn bug is going to infect, say, 50% of us in the end

Suggests about 40m dead globally, so something similar to Spanish Flu in outright scale

On that basis, if R0=2.4, the cost of herd immunity (if such a thing were to exist) would be half a million dead.

That seems consistent with the worst case scenario described by Boris in his broadcast.

I think the worst case was that the percentage infected would overshoot what was needed for herd immunity (if such a thing is possible) - about 60% - so that about 80% would be infected. For a fatality rate of 1.3% that would have taken the deaths up to about 700,000.