Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
I worry that Boris saying "no vaccine" today to the '22 is a very bad sign that this vaccine is either not safe or doesn't have high enough efficacy to warrant wide roll out.
If I had to guess, its the efficacy isn't high enough, or even shown to only reduce effects of COVID, but not stop infection or transmission.
I don't know much about vaccines but I would have guessed that the odds on the first vaccine being both safe and effective are quite low. I would expect several candidates to arrive before we get to a genuinely good vaccine.
Illness in a participant of a vaccine trial causes a temporary halt.
In related news, water is wet, gravity is the law and there's a film at 11
Sure, but it still delays things.
Not really - such halts will have been included in the original estimates for the trial lengths. Given x number of people in the trial, probability of an unusual but non-related medical event is y etc etc...
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
I worry that Boris saying "no vaccine" today to the '22 is a very bad sign that this vaccine is either not safe or doesn't have high enough efficacy to warrant wide roll out.
If I had to guess, its the efficacy isn't high enough, or even shown to only reduce effects of COVID, but not stop infection or transmission.
I don't know much about vaccines but I would have guessed that the odds on the first vaccine being both safe and effective are quite low. I would expect several candidates to arrive before we get to a genuinely good vaccine.
The experts on here will correct me, but I think they are only going for 50-60% for it to be "pass" to give to people.
Its air bridges all over again, every week the regions on the lists change...total mess.
Yup.
Nope. Air bridge was "can I fly" and the options were "yes" and "no". Here we have a three tier plan with 5 tiers. You think places being upgraded from L2 to L3 is funny? Wait until they go to Whitty's "Extremely High Risk" L4 - that's when they'll send Jenrick on to explain it.
I suppose the alternative is recalibrating the existing tiers overnight.
Tier 1 goes from medium to high Tier 2 goes from high to very high Tier 3 goes from very high to fuck me that's incredibly high.
But all the numbers stay the same so it's alright and not confusing.
The Three Tier Plan: Tier 0: Low (has to exist, can't go from Medium to nothing) Tier 1: Medium Tier 2: High Tier 3: Very High Tier 4: Extremely High (already referred to by Whitty)
So 5 tiers. And thats before we get into the local variations on the 3/5 tiers based on whining from local MPs / mayors
Tier 0 doesn't exist and doesn't have to exist. There is no "nothing" in this country, nor any "low" in this country. That is the point.
Nor does Tier 4 exist, its Tier 3.
Other than that, great remark. 🙄
There *will* be low. Refer back to the previous 5 point scale. As we wind off this thing eventually areas will be low. As for "Extremely High" thats what Whitty said would be needed. Which will need to be differentiated from the other areas.
So yes. Shagger absolutely fucked it up. Again. As Whitty said, its nowhere near enough. An absolute cluster fuck. Again. Which will kill people AND bankrupt businesses. Again. But hey, your sarcastic observations totally make up for it.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
I worry that Boris saying "no vaccine" today to the '22 is a very bad sign that this vaccine is either not safe or doesn't have high enough efficacy to warrant wide roll out.
If I had to guess, its the efficacy isn't high enough, or even shown to only reduce effects of COVID, but not stop infection or transmission.
If it's shown to reduce the effects of COVID but not stop the spread I think that would be good enough for a national roll out because it makes the CFR 0.001% instead of 1% and brings the maximum deaths down from 500k to 500 and hopefully negates this long COVID recovery period.
It is frankly an embarrassing prediction. Its somewhere between of limited use and needs to be weighed against all the other factor to so massive, it should be implemented whatever the other costs in terms of health care and economics are.
Break the circuit, maybe. But amused by the concept that a circuit breaker might "break the cycle". If anything is would create a cycle.
Yes, a circuit breaker might be useful to prevent a surge but ultimately the problem appliance is still there and you end up in a cycle of circuit breaking.
It's not even close to possible to judge pricing in major elections - the data where independent is so sparse as to be meaningless. The idea that major arbitrage opportunities exist is poppycock too.
Idiots.
This was comparing the prices between two exchanges.
I think polls close early, so I recall not too far different to a UK GE night, though obviously later for the West Coast. I remember East Coast results out while West Coast polls were still open.
And is there a big UK-style polls-have-closed-exit-poll-forecast that you can see, then go to bed, wake up and see that that was basically what happened anyway?
Ooh, the best bit is the in play betting. PB is way ahead of the curve and I did a reverse ferret very successfully in 2016, though @rcs1000 famously called it early on for Hillary. I blame it on too much Radiohead.
🙂
I was the first to call it for Hillary... and then the first (about fifteen minutes later) to call it for Trump!
The art of the reverse ferret, I did too, and turned my book green as a result!
That can actually be more satisfying than just getting it right. Golf analogy, saving par with a tricky up and down as opposed to the super competent but boring 'on in regulation and 2 putts'.
It is frankly an embarrassing prediction. Its somewhere between of limited use and needs to be weighed against all the other factor to so massive, it should be implemented whatever the other costs in terms of health care and economics are.
It's like a weather forecaster saying "tommorow there may be showers or a hurricane".
So the key point here is that local politicians in areas of high infection are desparate to see national restrictions, so it doesn’t look like their high-incidence areas are being singled out. Meanwhile, more than half the country lives in areas of almost no infection at all.
Sorry, that's simply not true - look at Malmesbury's helpful data. There are a number of areas, but mainly with very low population density, that have almost no infections at all. In most of the country, especially when measured by population, infections are rising - in some places very rapidly, some places more slowly, but inexorably rising.
Break the circuit, maybe. But amused by the concept that a circuit breaker might "break the cycle". If anything is would create a cycle.
Yes, a circuit breaker might be useful to prevent a surge but ultimately the problem appliance is still there and you end up in a cycle of circuit breaking.
They mean fire break. One of those idiocies like the SDP saying "break the mould of British politics."
Stand down....repeat stand down....no excitement....this doesn't sound like any announcement in next few days...next few months perhaps.
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”...
This means that the EMA’s vaccine committee has begun evaluating the first batch of data on the candidate. This process of analysis will continue until sufficient data is available and a formal application is made.
“This does not mean that a conclusion can be reached yet on the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, as much of the evidence is still to be submitted to the committee,” the watchdog said.
That was about a specificities trial of saliva tests.
What is interesting in that story is the lack of why.
Apparently they had some problems finding volunteers.. undefined....
Apparently "its part in Operation Moonshot had been paused due to a lack of clarity over the accuracy of the saliva testing system." - according to a politician who'd been told by council officials.
I smell systemic resistance - maybe even herd immunity. From things they don't like... but why?
I actually did a saliva test today at Southampton University, just spat in a pot, I had the result 8 hours later. They are doing it for all staff and contractors working at the UNI on a weekly basis.
These tests work. They are fairly accurate as well, I believe. The reason I suspect systemic resistance is that every time the government has spoken about mass testing - increasing PCR to 1 million per day for example, people from NHS/associated organisations pop up to say that this is a bad idea/wrong/screening is bad/ etc etc
It's honestly quite depressing that not a single journalist in this country has got enough scientific education to ask either Starmer, Labour or the actual scientists what a 2 week lockdown would achieve in terms of case numbers and how many days into it they think the R would drop below 1 and for how many days after that would it stay below one and for how long we'd need to keep the R below one for it to be effective in terms of public health.
Also what would a two week lockdown do to change the problem of 4 in 5 people who test positive not isolating once the two weeks are over, won't that problem still exist after the two weeks are over and lead to a rapid rise in new cases again.
These are two key questions that no one supporting the policy of this idiotic circuit breaker has answered and frankly can't because the two weeks does nothing for it.
What is the direction of travel in Missouri and West Virgina since 2016?
Trump won West Virginia by 42 points and Missouri by 18 points in 2016. The former in terms of that current poll is the real shocker with Trump ahead by 14 points .
Don't forget that WV was the last State in the South to convert from Dem to GOP, and the last Dem Governor of WV is still one of its Senators.
I thought WV broke away from Virginia to fight for the North.
Its air bridges all over again, every week the regions on the lists change...total mess.
Yup.
Nope. Air bridge was "can I fly" and the options were "yes" and "no". Here we have a three tier plan with 5 tiers. You think places being upgraded from L2 to L3 is funny? Wait until they go to Whitty's "Extremely High Risk" L4 - that's when they'll send Jenrick on to explain it.
I suppose the alternative is recalibrating the existing tiers overnight.
Tier 1 goes from medium to high Tier 2 goes from high to very high Tier 3 goes from very high to fuck me that's incredibly high.
But all the numbers stay the same so it's alright and not confusing.
The Three Tier Plan: Tier 0: Low (has to exist, can't go from Medium to nothing) Tier 1: Medium Tier 2: High Tier 3: Very High Tier 4: Extremely High (already referred to by Whitty)
So 5 tiers. And thats before we get into the local variations on the 3/5 tiers based on whining from local MPs / mayors
Tier 0 doesn't exist and doesn't have to exist. There is no "nothing" in this country, nor any "low" in this country. That is the point.
Nor does Tier 4 exist, its Tier 3.
Other than that, great remark. 🙄
There *will* be low. Refer back to the previous 5 point scale. As we wind off this thing eventually areas will be low. As for "Extremely High" thats what Whitty said would be needed. Which will need to be differentiated from the other areas.
So yes. Shagger absolutely fucked it up. Again. As Whitty said, its nowhere near enough. An absolute cluster fuck. Again. Which will kill people AND bankrupt businesses. Again. But hey, your sarcastic observations totally make up for it.
There might not be low risk until the pandemic is over. There's a baseline of medium risk until the pandemic is over as even if cases are low or zero in a county it could quickly pick back up again from even just one person going on holiday or moving around.
Once the pandemic is over it might be possible to go to low or zero risk, but frankly that would be an excellent change to be able to make and there's no need to have a tier for that yet.
Its air bridges all over again, every week the regions on the lists change...total mess.
Yup.
Nope. Air bridge was "can I fly" and the options were "yes" and "no". Here we have a three tier plan with 5 tiers. You think places being upgraded from L2 to L3 is funny? Wait until they go to Whitty's "Extremely High Risk" L4 - that's when they'll send Jenrick on to explain it.
I suppose the alternative is recalibrating the existing tiers overnight.
Tier 1 goes from medium to high Tier 2 goes from high to very high Tier 3 goes from very high to fuck me that's incredibly high.
But all the numbers stay the same so it's alright and not confusing.
The Three Tier Plan: Tier 0: Low (has to exist, can't go from Medium to nothing) Tier 1: Medium Tier 2: High Tier 3: Very High Tier 4: Extremely High (already referred to by Whitty)
So 5 tiers. And thats before we get into the local variations on the 3/5 tiers based on whining from local MPs / mayors
Tier 0 doesn't exist and doesn't have to exist. There is no "nothing" in this country, nor any "low" in this country. That is the point.
Nor does Tier 4 exist, its Tier 3.
Other than that, great remark. 🙄
There *will* be low. Refer back to the previous 5 point scale. As we wind off this thing eventually areas will be low. As for "Extremely High" thats what Whitty said would be needed. Which will need to be differentiated from the other areas.
So yes. Shagger absolutely fucked it up. Again. As Whitty said, its nowhere near enough. An absolute cluster fuck. Again. Which will kill people AND bankrupt businesses. Again. But hey, your sarcastic observations totally make up for it.
COVID-19 kills people, not Boris. Every now and again a zoonosis escapes into humans and slaughters us. 1890 (possibly a coronavirus), Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu etc. Previously, plague, measles (rinderpest for people) etc. The question is simply how best to ride the storm.
It is frankly an embarrassing prediction. Its somewhere between of limited use and needs to be weighed against all the other factor to so massive, it should be implemented whatever the other costs in terms of health care and economics are.
It's like a weather forecaster saying "tommorow there may be showers or a hurricane".
Isn't that pretty much what weather forecasters do?
It's honestly quite depressing that not a single journalist in this country has got enough scientific education to ask either Starmer, Labour or the actual scientists what a 2 week lockdown would achieve in terms of case numbers and how many days into it they think the R would drop below 1 and for how many days after that would it stay below one and for how long we'd need to keep the R below one for it to be effective in terms of public health.
Also what would a two week lockdown do to change the problem of 4 in 5 people who test positive not isolating once the two weeks are over, won't that problem still exist after the two weeks are over and lead to a rapid rise in new cases again.
These are two key questions that no one supporting the policy of this idiotic circuit breaker has answered and frankly can't because the two weeks does nothing for it.
Journalists are overwhelmingly pro-lockdown. Its a bit like Brexit in this respect, where the group think was Remain, because they only see the positives of EU membership, in this case they only see the positives of lockdown (or that the negatives can be overcome with more money thrown at it).
Even if they did have the scientific knowledge to think about it, I think their in-built bias is that it is the right move.
The case numbers have been mostly in the range 12,000 to 16,000 for at least a week now. It looks as if the growth in cases has stalled, so perhaps the measures are working at the moment. If so, is there still a need for a "circuit breaker"?
I am not an electrician, but I thought a circuit breaker was designed to protect a circuit from overload leading to a fire. If cases have stopped rising, then it is not going out of control yet.
It's honestly quite depressing that not a single journalist in this country has got enough scientific education to ask either Starmer, Labour or the actual scientists what a 2 week lockdown would achieve in terms of case numbers and how many days into it they think the R would drop below 1 and for how many days after that would it stay below one and for how long we'd need to keep the R below one for it to be effective in terms of public health.
Such journalists do exist, but they almost all work in the trade press or for scientific and technical publications. They sure as hell won't be working for the national broadcasters and Fleet Street.
Its air bridges all over again, every week the regions on the lists change...total mess.
Yup.
Nope. Air bridge was "can I fly" and the options were "yes" and "no". Here we have a three tier plan with 5 tiers. You think places being upgraded from L2 to L3 is funny? Wait until they go to Whitty's "Extremely High Risk" L4 - that's when they'll send Jenrick on to explain it.
I suppose the alternative is recalibrating the existing tiers overnight.
Tier 1 goes from medium to high Tier 2 goes from high to very high Tier 3 goes from very high to fuck me that's incredibly high.
But all the numbers stay the same so it's alright and not confusing.
The Three Tier Plan: Tier 0: Low (has to exist, can't go from Medium to nothing) Tier 1: Medium Tier 2: High Tier 3: Very High Tier 4: Extremely High (already referred to by Whitty)
So 5 tiers. And thats before we get into the local variations on the 3/5 tiers based on whining from local MPs / mayors
Tier 0 doesn't exist and doesn't have to exist. There is no "nothing" in this country, nor any "low" in this country. That is the point.
Nor does Tier 4 exist, its Tier 3.
Other than that, great remark. 🙄
Tier 0 would simply be a name - rather a good one for headline writers - for a return to normality, with no special laws covering Covid 19. I don't think we can begin to guess what year Tier 0 would arrive in any part or every park of the England or the UK. Obvs. not 2020. I think obviously not 2021. A glimmer of a chance in 2022 anyone?
One more speculation: What will be the high point of the national debt - now just over £2 tn. What about £3.1 tn?
Platform 0 is a concept that's only been around in the last decade (I think), when they add a new platform to certain railway stations (eg. King's Cross). I hate it to be honest!
That was about a specificities trial of saliva tests.
What is interesting in that story is the lack of why.
Apparently they had some problems finding volunteers.. undefined....
Apparently "its part in Operation Moonshot had been paused due to a lack of clarity over the accuracy of the saliva testing system." - according to a politician who'd been told by council officials.
I smell systemic resistance - maybe even herd immunity. From things they don't like... but why?
I actually did a saliva test today at Southampton University, just spat in a pot, I had the result 8 hours later. They are doing it for all staff and contractors working at the UNI on a weekly basis.
These tests work. They are fairly accurate as well, I believe. The reason I suspect systemic resistance is that every time the government has spoken about mass testing - increasing PCR to 1 million per day for example, people from NHS/associated organisations pop up to say that this is a bad idea/wrong/screening is bad/ etc etc
The UNI are analysing the tests themselves, i assume most other UNIs can do it as well. It is a much simpler process than the current method of testing so the million tests a day by next Spring should be easily achievable.
What is the direction of travel in Missouri and West Virgina since 2016?
Trump won West Virginia by 42 points and Missouri by 18 points in 2016. The former in terms of that current poll is the real shocker with Trump ahead by 14 points .
Don't forget that WV was the last State in the South to convert from Dem to GOP, and the last Dem Governor of WV is still one of its Senators.
I thought WV broke away from Virginia to fight for the North.
LOLs. It was the GOP that ended slavery, so they broke with VA to become a GOP state. But for a long while after that, it was a solid Dem state.
Stand down....repeat stand down....no excitement....this doesn't sound like any announcement in next few days...next few months perhaps.
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”...
This means that the EMA’s vaccine committee has begun evaluating the first batch of data on the candidate. This process of analysis will continue until sufficient data is available and a formal application is made.
“This does not mean that a conclusion can be reached yet on the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, as much of the evidence is still to be submitted to the committee,” the watchdog said.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
I worry that Boris saying "no vaccine" today to the '22 is a very bad sign that this vaccine is either not safe or doesn't have high enough efficacy to warrant wide roll out.
Isn't the data still double-blinded? Will even he have any news yet?
I think it might more be simply trying to temper expectations so that if there is bad news its not too much of a let down, plus if people take things more seriously now that's good right now anyway. OTOH if there's good news then all the better.
If initial results are due then the data will already be known by a handful of people at Oxford, AZ and the top levels of the government.
Worst result could be they are inconclusive.....we need to run another Phase III trial.
Phase 3 is mostly about safety in this case. In other cases you compare it against the standard treatment, but there ain't one. If it's inconclusive on safety grounds... it's out.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
I worry that Boris saying "no vaccine" today to the '22 is a very bad sign that this vaccine is either not safe or doesn't have high enough efficacy to warrant wide roll out.
If I had to guess, its the efficacy isn't high enough, or even shown to only reduce effects of COVID, but not stop infection or transmission.
I don't know much about vaccines but I would have guessed that the odds on the first vaccine being both safe and effective are quite low. I would expect several candidates to arrive before we get to a genuinely good vaccine.
The experts on here will correct me, but I think they are only going for 50-60% for it to be "pass" to give to people.
At which point declare VC day (Victory over Coronavirus), get everyone back in the offices and pubs immediately, and let the nerdy scientists debate for years to come about whether it was actually an effective vaccine or not through the medium of excess death statistics that half the country either doesn't understand or no longer cares about.
However it is not an easy question to answer, for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, you need to compare the economic cost of locking down, with the economic cost of not locking down, rather than comparing it to baseline. Because even in a "no lockdown" state, you will still see significant economic impacts - some people will be sick and won't go to work, people will tend to avoid high risk activities anyway, etc. Simply, the virus on its own - even absent a lockdown - will change behaviour, and that will result in costs for the government in terms of lower taxes and higher spending.
If you look at the economic performance of non-lockdown states in the US (Arizona, Georgia, Florida being the obvious examples), then there isn't a massive difference in unemployment or economic growth compared to similar states with more stringent measures. (It's also hard to disaggregate what's the result of restrictions, and what's the result of other factors such as dense urban populations.) Still - the data is here https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state - and I think it's reasonable to infer there's a 1-2% economic improvement in "no lockdown" states compared to "full lockdown". (Bear in mind, US GDP growth numbers are annualised, so you need to divide by four.)
It's honestly quite depressing that not a single journalist in this country has got enough scientific education to ask either Starmer, Labour or the actual scientists what a 2 week lockdown would achieve in terms of case numbers and how many days into it they think the R would drop below 1 and for how many days after that would it stay below one and for how long we'd need to keep the R below one for it to be effective in terms of public health.
Also what would a two week lockdown do to change the problem of 4 in 5 people who test positive not isolating once the two weeks are over, won't that problem still exist after the two weeks are over and lead to a rapid rise in new cases again.
These are two key questions that no one supporting the policy of this idiotic circuit breaker has answered and frankly can't because the two weeks does nothing for it.
Journalists are overwhelmingly pro-lockdown. Its a bit like Brexit in this respect, where the group think was Remain, because they only see the positives of EU membership, in this case they only see the positives of lockdown (or that the negatives can be overcome with more money thrown at it).
Even if they did have the scientific knowledge to think about it, I think their in-built bias is that it is the right move.
It needs to be made quite clear, that any new movement restrictions will most definitely apply to political journalists. Journalists with a scientific background will however be exempt.
"It does seem that this Government for the best of reasons but mistakenly is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact of the matter is that people in their 80s and 90s die. If that comes as news to your listeners or they’re offended by that statement they haven’t been paying close attention."
Charles Walker MP, the Vice-Chair of the 1922 Committee
It's honestly quite depressing that not a single journalist in this country has got enough scientific education to ask either Starmer, Labour or the actual scientists what a 2 week lockdown would achieve in terms of case numbers and how many days into it they think the R would drop below 1 and for how many days after that would it stay below one and for how long we'd need to keep the R below one for it to be effective in terms of public health.
Such journalists do exist, but they almost all work in the trade press or for scientific and technical publications. They sure as hell won't be working for the national broadcasters and Fleet Street.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Given Oxford don't even know the data as not enough cases to unseal it yet (as per my link), I call BS on anything concrete in that rumour, other than that is what the monkeys reaction was when exposed to a massive dose of the plague.
What is the direction of travel in Missouri and West Virgina since 2016?
Trump won West Virginia by 42 points and Missouri by 18 points in 2016. The former in terms of that current poll is the real shocker with Trump ahead by 14 points .
Don't forget that WV was the last State in the South to convert from Dem to GOP, and the last Dem Governor of WV is still one of its Senators.
I thought WV broke away from Virginia to fight for the North.
LOLs. It was the GOP that ended slavery, so they broke with VA to become a GOP state. But for a long while after that, it was a solid Dem state.
I was talking about WV being considered a "Southern State".
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Given Oxford don't even know the data as not enough cases to unseal it yet (as per my link), I call BS on anything concrete in that rumour, other than that is what the monkeys reaction was when exposed to a massive dose of the plague.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Yes, I've heard that too. It reduced the severity enough to bring the CFR down significantly but doesn't stop people from actually getting it in the first place. The aerosolised version of it may prevent infection in the first place but that's still in PI and hasn't been granted rapid PIII testing in the UK yet. Ultimately if two doses of the injected vaccine brings the CFR down from 1% to 0.01% or lower it should be rolled out and then just live with it until the aerosolised version can be rolled out.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Given Oxford don't even know the data as not enough cases to unseal it yet (as per my link), I call BS on anything concrete in that rumour, other than that is what the monkeys reaction was when exposed to a massive dose of the plague.
I thought it was a single blinded study?
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not.
“So we have to accumulate enough cases in the trials for the regulators to be comfortable that when we try and look at the statistics of this difference between the two groups in the trials, that there is enough confidence … that the estimates we're giving are true.
“For that to occur we need to accumulate cases in the trials and of course that depends what happens next. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Given Oxford don't even know the data as not enough cases to unseal it yet (as per my link), I call BS on anything concrete in that rumour, other than that is what the monkeys reaction was when exposed to a massive dose of the plague.
I thought it was a single blinded study?
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not.
“So we have to accumulate enough cases in the trials for the regulators to be comfortable that when we try and look at the statistics of this difference between the two groups in the trials, that there is enough confidence … that the estimates we're giving are true.
“For that to occur we need to accumulate cases in the trials and of course that depends what happens next. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”
What is the direction of travel in Missouri and West Virgina since 2016?
Trump won West Virginia by 42 points and Missouri by 18 points in 2016. The former in terms of that current poll is the real shocker with Trump ahead by 14 points .
Don't forget that WV was the last State in the South to convert from Dem to GOP, and the last Dem Governor of WV is still one of its Senators.
I thought WV broke away from Virginia to fight for the North.
LOLs. It was the GOP that ended slavery, so they broke with VA to become a GOP state. But for a long while after that, it was a solid Dem state.
I was talking about WV being considered a "Southern State".
It is frankly an embarrassing prediction. Its somewhere between of limited use and needs to be weighed against all the other factor to so massive, it should be implemented whatever the other costs in terms of health care and economics are.
It's like a weather forecaster saying "tommorow there may be showers or a hurricane".
Isn't that pretty much what weather forecasters do?
Michael Fish has been keeping a low profile since 1987
“I can’t give you a time scale but I don’t think it's going to be soon. Even if we've got a vaccine and we're rolling it out tomorrow, I don’t see well into next year that we could be in a position where we're comfortable to give up [the measures] and for everyone to be meeting in person.”
Its going to be 6+ months even if they rock up with a press conference tomorrow and say its all good folks. So lets call it another year, that's the timeframe. 2 week circuit breaker going to do very little against that time frame.
The case numbers have been mostly in the range 12,000 to 16,000 for at least a week now. It looks as if the growth in cases has stalled, so perhaps the measures are working at the moment. If so, is there still a need for a "circuit breaker"?
I am not an electrician, but I thought a circuit breaker was designed to protect a circuit from overload leading to a fire. If cases have stopped rising, then it is not going out of control yet.
Given that we don't know what the last few days figures are how can you say for at least a week?
Quite an amazing stat coming out of Travis county Texas which includes Austin and the surrounding area.
97% of eligible voters have registered to vote , that’s just over 850,000 voters . It also happens to be a Dem stronghold where Clinton won 66% of the vote in 2016.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Given Oxford don't even know the data as not enough cases to unseal it yet (as per my link), I call BS on anything concrete in that rumour, other than that is what the monkeys reaction was when exposed to a massive dose of the plague.
I thought it was a single blinded study?
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not.
“So we have to accumulate enough cases in the trials for the regulators to be comfortable that when we try and look at the statistics of this difference between the two groups in the trials, that there is enough confidence … that the estimates we're giving are true.
“For that to occur we need to accumulate cases in the trials and of course that depends what happens next. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
That's good enough, I bet the biggest immune boost will be in the healthiest youngest patients too...
"It does seem that this Government for the best of reasons but mistakenly is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact of the matter is that people in their 80s and 90s die. If that comes as news to your listeners or they’re offended by that statement they haven’t been paying close attention."
Charles Walker MP, the Vice-Chair of the 1922 Committee
Isn't that Trump's line? Why do you want him to lose, again?
What is the direction of travel in Missouri and West Virgina since 2016?
Trump won West Virginia by 42 points and Missouri by 18 points in 2016. The former in terms of that current poll is the real shocker with Trump ahead by 14 points .
Don't forget that WV was the last State in the South to convert from Dem to GOP, and the last Dem Governor of WV is still one of its Senators.
I thought WV broke away from Virginia to fight for the North.
LOLs. It was the GOP that ended slavery, so they broke with VA to become a GOP state. But for a long while after that, it was a solid Dem state.
I was talking about WV being considered a "Southern State".
Still south of the Mason-Dixie.
You can make an argument either way:
"THE SOUTH. ... According to the Census Bureau, the South consists of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. Washington, DC, is also included in the South."
But 538 does not consider MD, DE or WV as part of the south by virtue of self-identification:
Quite an amazing stat coming out of Travis county Texas which includes Austin and the surrounding area.
97% of eligible voters have registered to vote , that’s just over 850,000 voters . It also happens to be a Dem stronghold where Clinton won 66% of the vote in 2016.
They've got to be a bit careful they don't overshoot
However it is not an easy question to answer, for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, you need to compare the economic cost of locking down, with the economic cost of not locking down, rather than comparing it to baseline. Because even in a "no lockdown" state, you will still see significant economic impacts - some people will be sick and won't go to work, people will tend to avoid high risk activities anyway, etc. Simply, the virus on its own - even absent a lockdown - will change behaviour, and that will result in costs for the government in terms of lower taxes and higher spending.
If you look at the economic performance of non-lockdown states in the US (Arizona, Georgia, Florida being the obvious examples), then there isn't a massive difference in unemployment or economic growth compared to similar states with more stringent measures. (It's also hard to disaggregate what's the result of restrictions, and what's the result of other factors such as dense urban populations.) Still - the data is here https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state - and I think it's reasonable to infer there's a 1-2% economic improvement in "no lockdown" states compared to "full lockdown". (Bear in mind, US GDP growth numbers are annualised, so you need to divide by four.)
In the UK the question has been answered and the answer is used all the time. NICE determine the cost benefit of a quality years of life and use this for all treatment recommendations and when weighing up new drugs. If I recall correctly the figure is around £20-30K per year of life.
This system seems to have been thrown out of the window for covid.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
That's good enough, I bet the biggest immune boost will be in the healthiest youngest patients too...
That's not going to save Granny though. What do we do then? Lock up the oldies for many more years? Its tricky.
"It does seem that this Government for the best of reasons but mistakenly is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact of the matter is that people in their 80s and 90s die. If that comes as news to your listeners or they’re offended by that statement they haven’t been paying close attention."
Charles Walker MP, the Vice-Chair of the 1922 Committee
Well, one can hardly complain about him mincing his words like many politicians!
What is the direction of travel in Missouri and West Virgina since 2016?
Trump won West Virginia by 42 points and Missouri by 18 points in 2016. The former in terms of that current poll is the real shocker with Trump ahead by 14 points .
Don't forget that WV was the last State in the South to convert from Dem to GOP, and the last Dem Governor of WV is still one of its Senators.
I thought WV broke away from Virginia to fight for the North.
LOLs. It was the GOP that ended slavery, so they broke with VA to become a GOP state. But for a long while after that, it was a solid Dem state.
I was talking about WV being considered a "Southern State".
Still south of the Mason-Dixie.
West Virginia is not so much a Southern state as an Appalachian state, and in fact is the only state that's wholly in the standard definition of "Appalachia". Appalachia is characterized by extreme poverty coupled with a spirit of independence strong even by American standards. The former would make you assume it would go to the Democrats, but it's outweighed by the latter and its concomitant distrust of "Big Government".
You are making the brave assumption that you survive.
If it's me we are talking about I am quite content to spend the £210,000,000,000 on me alone. It's only (borrowed) money after all.
On the contrary I am at large risk having chemical induced respiratory problems and allergic asthma on top.
Well I for one am happy to spend whatever it takes to keep you safe!
Then I hope you never get near power. The cost of bankrupting future generations to keep one person safe is not a legacy I would wish thanks all the same
Please yourself, I made what I considered to be a generous offer in good faith.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
That's good enough, I bet the biggest immune boost will be in the healthiest youngest patients too...
That's not going to save Granny though. What do we do then? Lock up the oldies for many more years? Its tricky.
No, you accept that people die, especially as they get older. This may cut life expectancy until a fully effective vaccine is found or herd immunity is reached globally. I think as a nation and as a world we're going to have to come to terms with this.
Its air bridges all over again, every week the regions on the lists change...total mess.
Yup.
Nope. Air bridge was "can I fly" and the options were "yes" and "no". Here we have a three tier plan with 5 tiers. You think places being upgraded from L2 to L3 is funny? Wait until they go to Whitty's "Extremely High Risk" L4 - that's when they'll send Jenrick on to explain it.
I suppose the alternative is recalibrating the existing tiers overnight.
Tier 1 goes from medium to high Tier 2 goes from high to very high Tier 3 goes from very high to fuck me that's incredibly high.
But all the numbers stay the same so it's alright and not confusing.
The Three Tier Plan: Tier 0: Low (has to exist, can't go from Medium to nothing) Tier 1: Medium Tier 2: High Tier 3: Very High Tier 4: Extremely High (already referred to by Whitty)
So 5 tiers. And thats before we get into the local variations on the 3/5 tiers based on whining from local MPs / mayors
Tier 0 doesn't exist and doesn't have to exist. There is no "nothing" in this country, nor any "low" in this country. That is the point.
Nor does Tier 4 exist, its Tier 3.
Other than that, great remark. 🙄
Tier 0 would simply be a name - rather a good one for headline writers - for a return to normality, with no special laws covering Covid 19. I don't think we can begin to guess what year Tier 0 would arrive in any part or every park of the England or the UK. Obvs. not 2020. I think obviously not 2021. A glimmer of a chance in 2022 anyone?
One more speculation: What will be the high point of the national debt - now just over £2 tn. What about £3.1 tn?
Platform 0 is a concept that's only been around in the last decade (I think), when they add a new platform to certain railway stations (eg. King's Cross). I hate it to be honest!
Goes back a lot further. Cardiff Central got a platform 0 around 2000 when I lived there and I don't think it was the first.
You are making the brave assumption that you survive.
If it's me we are talking about I am quite content to spend the £210,000,000,000 on me alone. It's only (borrowed) money after all.
On the contrary I am at large risk having chemical induced respiratory problems and allergic asthma on top.
Well I for one am happy to spend whatever it takes to keep you safe!
Then I hope you never get near power. The cost of bankrupting future generations to keep one person safe is not a legacy I would wish thanks all the same
Please yourself, I made what I considered to be a generous offer in good faith.
I'm going to have to back you up on this one. Given a choice between the permanent annihilation of the self and the expenditure of £210 billion of fiat currency, anyone who earnestly opts for the former is not really thinking straight...
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
That's good enough, I bet the biggest immune boost will be in the healthiest youngest patients too...
That's not going to save Granny though. What do we do then? Lock up the oldies for many more years? Its tricky.
It will still contribute to herd immunity making granny less likely to catch it. And her vaccine will make her less likely to die from it. She probably also comes from a generation that understands, and accepts, the risk from communicable diseases. My mum remembers houses being fumigated and the bedding burned, when they had scarlet fever cases
However it is not an easy question to answer, for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, you need to compare the economic cost of locking down, with the economic cost of not locking down, rather than comparing it to baseline. Because even in a "no lockdown" state, you will still see significant economic impacts - some people will be sick and won't go to work, people will tend to avoid high risk activities anyway, etc. Simply, the virus on its own - even absent a lockdown - will change behaviour, and that will result in costs for the government in terms of lower taxes and higher spending.
If you look at the economic performance of non-lockdown states in the US (Arizona, Georgia, Florida being the obvious examples), then there isn't a massive difference in unemployment or economic growth compared to similar states with more stringent measures. (It's also hard to disaggregate what's the result of restrictions, and what's the result of other factors such as dense urban populations.) Still - the data is here https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state - and I think it's reasonable to infer there's a 1-2% economic improvement in "no lockdown" states compared to "full lockdown". (Bear in mind, US GDP growth numbers are annualised, so you need to divide by four.)
In the UK the question has been answered and the answer is used all the time. NICE determine the cost benefit of a quality years of life and use this for all treatment recommendations and when weighing up new drugs. If I recall correctly the figure is around £20-30K per year of life.
This system seems to have been thrown out of the window for covid.
With all due respect, you're missing my point.
I'm not saying that there isn't a £20-30k/year NICE cost, but that you have to compare the cost of action (financially) with the cost of inaction.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Given Oxford don't even know the data as not enough cases to unseal it yet (as per my link), I call BS on anything concrete in that rumour, other than that is what the monkeys reaction was when exposed to a massive dose of the plague.
I thought it was a single blinded study?
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not.
“So we have to accumulate enough cases in the trials for the regulators to be comfortable that when we try and look at the statistics of this difference between the two groups in the trials, that there is enough confidence … that the estimates we're giving are true.
“For that to occur we need to accumulate cases in the trials and of course that depends what happens next. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”
What is the direction of travel in Missouri and West Virgina since 2016?
Trump won West Virginia by 42 points and Missouri by 18 points in 2016. The former in terms of that current poll is the real shocker with Trump ahead by 14 points .
Don't forget that WV was the last State in the South to convert from Dem to GOP, and the last Dem Governor of WV is still one of its Senators.
I thought WV broke away from Virginia to fight for the North.
LOLs. It was the GOP that ended slavery, so they broke with VA to become a GOP state. But for a long while after that, it was a solid Dem state.
I was talking about WV being considered a "Southern State".
Still south of the Mason-Dixie.
West Virginia is not so much a Southern state as an Appalachian state, and in fact is the only state that's wholly in the standard definition of "Appalachia". Appalachia is characterized by extreme poverty coupled with a spirit of independence strong even by American standards. The former would make you assume it would go to the Democrats, but it's outweighed by the latter and its concomitant distrust of "Big Government".
Funny, I deleted Appalachian from my original post in favour of Southern.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Given Oxford don't even know the data as not enough cases to unseal it yet (as per my link), I call BS on anything concrete in that rumour, other than that is what the monkeys reaction was when exposed to a massive dose of the plague.
I thought it was a single blinded study?
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not.
“So we have to accumulate enough cases in the trials for the regulators to be comfortable that when we try and look at the statistics of this difference between the two groups in the trials, that there is enough confidence … that the estimates we're giving are true.
“For that to occur we need to accumulate cases in the trials and of course that depends what happens next. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”
I find myself in the strange position of somewhat agreeing with both Johnson and Starmer tonight. Both are agreeing that we have a big problem: cases are rising, and so are deaths; these facts are indisputable. And that if we don't act quickly, it will get much worse. They disagree a bit on what to do, but not that much, and I suspect they will converge over the next fortnight. But many on here seem to disagree; although those arguing that only the young are getting it so there's no problem seem to have gone a bit quieter as it spreads to older age groups and the death toll rises.
The idea that further restrictions will cause untold collateral damage doesn't hold water for me. For example, many refer to undiagnosed cancer, delayed operations and so on - serious matters, I agree. But if the virus continues uncontrolled, surely the NHS will be so overwhelmed by Covid patients that cancer treatment will get even worse? And similarly, if the virus spreads without serious containment, the economy will be even more shattered than it would be if we contained the virus so that things can stay open and people can get back to work?
So the answer to the collateral damage of Covid must lie in reducing the incidence of infection and the rising pressure on the NHS, including the death toll. We are back to where we were in early March unless something is done; inaction is not an option. Unless the rate of infection comes down low enough to find and isolate (by compulsion if necessary) those who are spreading the disease, we will be stuck in an endless cycle. Yes, the circuit breaker idea may well not be enough - but it's a lot better than nothing. I suspect if the pure anti-lockdown people got their way both our health care and our economy would be devastated.
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
The rumour doing the rounds is that the numbers are positive, but not transformational.
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
That's good enough, I bet the biggest immune boost will be in the healthiest youngest patients too...
You are making the brave assumption that you survive.
If it's me we are talking about I am quite content to spend the £210,000,000,000 on me alone. It's only (borrowed) money after all.
On the contrary I am at large risk having chemical induced respiratory problems and allergic asthma on top.
Well I for one am happy to spend whatever it takes to keep you safe!
Then I hope you never get near power. The cost of bankrupting future generations to keep one person safe is not a legacy I would wish thanks all the same
Please yourself, I made what I considered to be a generous offer in good faith.
I'm going to have to back you up on this one. Given a choice between the permanent annihilation of the self and the expenditure of £210 billion of fiat currency, anyone who earnestly opts for the former is not really thinking straight...
Death isn't negotiable. It sometimes happens when you cross the road. Lockdowns also kill people directly and indirectly.
However it is not an easy question to answer, for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, you need to compare the economic cost of locking down, with the economic cost of not locking down, rather than comparing it to baseline. Because even in a "no lockdown" state, you will still see significant economic impacts - some people will be sick and won't go to work, people will tend to avoid high risk activities anyway, etc. Simply, the virus on its own - even absent a lockdown - will change behaviour, and that will result in costs for the government in terms of lower taxes and higher spending.
If you look at the economic performance of non-lockdown states in the US (Arizona, Georgia, Florida being the obvious examples), then there isn't a massive difference in unemployment or economic growth compared to similar states with more stringent measures. (It's also hard to disaggregate what's the result of restrictions, and what's the result of other factors such as dense urban populations.) Still - the data is here https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state - and I think it's reasonable to infer there's a 1-2% economic improvement in "no lockdown" states compared to "full lockdown". (Bear in mind, US GDP growth numbers are annualised, so you need to divide by four.)
In the UK the question has been answered and the answer is used all the time. NICE determine the cost benefit of a quality years of life and use this for all treatment recommendations and when weighing up new drugs. If I recall correctly the figure is around £20-30K per year of life.
This system seems to have been thrown out of the window for covid.
Not necessarily, people are prescribing all economic cost or disruption relative to if the virus never happened to trying to save lives.
But of course if the government were to say "there's nothing we can do, people will die, just look after yourselves" then there would still be tremendous economic disruption as people will stop going out. The streets were already getting deserted well before 23 March.
I've yet to see any analysis of how much has been spent in this country that wouldn't be spent if there'd been no lockdown. I don't think its a counterfactual that is possible to estimate, but if there are any reasonable estimates I'd be very curious to see them.
You are making the brave assumption that you survive.
If it's me we are talking about I am quite content to spend the £210,000,000,000 on me alone. It's only (borrowed) money after all.
On the contrary I am at large risk having chemical induced respiratory problems and allergic asthma on top.
Well I for one am happy to spend whatever it takes to keep you safe!
Then I hope you never get near power. The cost of bankrupting future generations to keep one person safe is not a legacy I would wish thanks all the same
Please yourself, I made what I considered to be a generous offer in good faith.
A generous offer with other peoples money, people as yet unborn
You are making the brave assumption that you survive.
If it's me we are talking about I am quite content to spend the £210,000,000,000 on me alone. It's only (borrowed) money after all.
On the contrary I am at large risk having chemical induced respiratory problems and allergic asthma on top.
Well I for one am happy to spend whatever it takes to keep you safe!
Then I hope you never get near power. The cost of bankrupting future generations to keep one person safe is not a legacy I would wish thanks all the same
Please yourself, I made what I considered to be a generous offer in good faith.
I'm going to have to back you up on this one. Given a choice between the permanent annihilation of the self and the expenditure of £210 billion of fiat currency, anyone who earnestly opts for the former is not really thinking straight...
Exactly, my imaginary money is just as good as the Government's imaginary money.
Good evening all. Have any other European countries deployed a circuit breaker 2-3 week national lockdown in the last few weeks?
Belgium and the Netherlands look like they might do it.
Thanks. I've been out most of the day so missed Starmer's conference. Was he asked, and did he answer what happens when the circuit breaker period ends? Yesterday he was quite critical of Boris for having no exit strategy. Did he outline his exit strategy for an circuit breaker lockdown?
You are making the brave assumption that you survive.
If it's me we are talking about I am quite content to spend the £210,000,000,000 on me alone. It's only (borrowed) money after all.
On the contrary I am at large risk having chemical induced respiratory problems and allergic asthma on top.
Well I for one am happy to spend whatever it takes to keep you safe!
Then I hope you never get near power. The cost of bankrupting future generations to keep one person safe is not a legacy I would wish thanks all the same
Please yourself, I made what I considered to be a generous offer in good faith.
I'm going to have to back you up on this one. Given a choice between the permanent annihilation of the self and the expenditure of £210 billion of fiat currency, anyone who earnestly opts for the former is not really thinking straight...
Or perhaps isn't selfish. Its the sort of justification used by people who murder others because they need a new organ. After all what does it matter against the annihilation of self and that sort of money will absolutely cause the death of others
Sky saying AstraZenica vaccine trial results are due "any day".
I really hope something good comes from this soon, we could all do with some good news. Hope it doesn't affect the election Stateside though.
I worry that Boris saying "no vaccine" today to the '22 is a very bad sign that this vaccine is either not safe or doesn't have high enough efficacy to warrant wide roll out.
If I had to guess, its the efficacy isn't high enough, or even shown to only reduce effects of COVID, but not stop infection or transmission.
I don't know much about vaccines but I would have guessed that the odds on the first vaccine being both safe and effective are quite low. I would expect several candidates to arrive before we get to a genuinely good vaccine.
With vaccines safety matters far more than efficacy
Comments
So yes. Shagger absolutely fucked it up. Again. As Whitty said, its nowhere near enough. An absolute cluster fuck. Again. Which will kill people AND bankrupt businesses. Again. But hey, your sarcastic observations totally make up for it.
"Act now. Break the cycle".
Break the circuit, maybe. But amused by the concept that a circuit breaker might "break the cycle". If anything is would create a cycle.
(The Donald would know what I mean.)
Logic being red and blue states largely reversed post-war, but Alaska is one of the newest states with Hawaii but Hawaii is quite blue.
Once enough cases have been recorded among the programme’s 10,000 volunteers in the UK, scientists will then be able to ‘unblind the trial’ to see whether those infected with Covid-19 had been given a shot of AZD1222 or not. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”...
This means that the EMA’s vaccine committee has begun evaluating the first batch of data on the candidate. This process of analysis will continue until sufficient data is available and a formal application is made.
“This does not mean that a conclusion can be reached yet on the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, as much of the evidence is still to be submitted to the committee,” the watchdog said.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-university-cases-trials-latest-b1016739.html
Also what would a two week lockdown do to change the problem of 4 in 5 people who test positive not isolating once the two weeks are over, won't that problem still exist after the two weeks are over and lead to a rapid rise in new cases again.
These are two key questions that no one supporting the policy of this idiotic circuit breaker has answered and frankly can't because the two weeks does nothing for it.
Once the pandemic is over it might be possible to go to low or zero risk, but frankly that would be an excellent change to be able to make and there's no need to have a tier for that yet.
So no, no need for a Tier Zero.
Even if they did have the scientific knowledge to think about it, I think their in-built bias is that it is the right move.
I am not an electrician, but I thought a circuit breaker was designed to protect a circuit from overload leading to a fire. If cases have stopped rising, then it is not going out of control yet.
Is the plan, I assume...
However it is not an easy question to answer, for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, you need to compare the economic cost of locking down, with the economic cost of not locking down, rather than comparing it to baseline. Because even in a "no lockdown" state, you will still see significant economic impacts - some people will be sick and won't go to work, people will tend to avoid high risk activities anyway, etc. Simply, the virus on its own - even absent a lockdown - will change behaviour, and that will result in costs for the government in terms of lower taxes and higher spending.
If you look at the economic performance of non-lockdown states in the US (Arizona, Georgia, Florida being the obvious examples), then there isn't a massive difference in unemployment or economic growth compared to similar states with more stringent measures. (It's also hard to disaggregate what's the result of restrictions, and what's the result of other factors such as dense urban populations.) Still - the data is here https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state - and I think it's reasonable to infer there's a 1-2% economic improvement in "no lockdown" states compared to "full lockdown". (Bear in mind, US GDP growth numbers are annualised, so you need to divide by four.)
Charles Walker MP, the Vice-Chair of the 1922 Committee
In other words, it gives your immune system a leg up, and significantly reduces the likelihood you will be hospitalised and die, but it doesn't altogether eliminate you getting the disease. What we don't know yet is if it has any impact on the amount of viral matter you shed: if it has a big impact, that would dramatically lower R, but I think that's much harder to calculate.
The other question is about side effects.
Of course, DC has not, but is not a State.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
“So we have to accumulate enough cases in the trials for the regulators to be comfortable that when we try and look at the statistics of this difference between the two groups in the trials, that there is enough confidence … that the estimates we're giving are true.
“For that to occur we need to accumulate cases in the trials and of course that depends what happens next. We are just seeing this big rise in the UK and with 10,000 people we should be able to get there, potentially even this year.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-university-cases-trials-latest-b1016739.html
“I can’t give you a time scale but I don’t think it's going to be soon. Even if we've got a vaccine and we're rolling it out tomorrow, I don’t see well into next year that we could be in a position where we're comfortable to give up [the measures] and for everyone to be meeting in person.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-oxford-university-cases-trials-latest-b1016739.html
Its going to be 6+ months even if they rock up with a press conference tomorrow and say its all good folks. So lets call it another year, that's the timeframe. 2 week circuit breaker going to do very little against that time frame.
The 7th of october was 18,000
97% of eligible voters have registered to vote , that’s just over 850,000 voters . It also happens to be a Dem stronghold where Clinton won 66% of the vote in 2016.
"THE SOUTH. ... According to the Census Bureau, the South consists of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. Washington, DC, is also included in the South."
But 538 does not consider MD, DE or WV as part of the south by virtue of self-identification:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-states-are-in-the-south/
This system seems to have been thrown out of the window for covid.
No, you accept that people die, especially as they get older. This may cut life expectancy until a fully effective vaccine is found or herd immunity is reached globally. I think as a nation and as a world we're going to have to come to terms with this.
I'm not saying that there isn't a £20-30k/year NICE cost, but that you have to compare the cost of action (financially) with the cost of inaction.
Don't forget we'll get MUCH more interesting information out of the AZ trials in Brazil and South Africa.
The idea that further restrictions will cause untold collateral damage doesn't hold water for me. For example, many refer to undiagnosed cancer, delayed operations and so on - serious matters, I agree. But if the virus continues uncontrolled, surely the NHS will be so overwhelmed by Covid patients that cancer treatment will get even worse? And similarly, if the virus spreads without serious containment, the economy will be even more shattered than it would be if we contained the virus so that things can stay open and people can get back to work?
So the answer to the collateral damage of Covid must lie in reducing the incidence of infection and the rising pressure on the NHS, including the death toll. We are back to where we were in early March unless something is done; inaction is not an option. Unless the rate of infection comes down low enough to find and isolate (by compulsion if necessary) those who are spreading the disease, we will be stuck in an endless cycle. Yes, the circuit breaker idea may well not be enough - but it's a lot better than nothing. I suspect if the pure anti-lockdown people got their way both our health care and our economy would be devastated.
But of course if the government were to say "there's nothing we can do, people will die, just look after yourselves" then there would still be tremendous economic disruption as people will stop going out. The streets were already getting deserted well before 23 March.
I've yet to see any analysis of how much has been spent in this country that wouldn't be spent if there'd been no lockdown. I don't think its a counterfactual that is possible to estimate, but if there are any reasonable estimates I'd be very curious to see them.