The Spanish health minister has just said (I think!) that the country is reaching the peak and that some areas might already have passed it - good news if indeed true! ( @nichomar@felix did I understand his news conference correctly??)
He has been saying it all week. However, I think at best we may flatline for a while yet. The bigger problem is the 14% infection rate among healthcare workers and the ICU numbers. I was more hopeful earlier in the week. A bit less so now.
However, I look at the green line on this and struggle to believe the UK deaths peak will be less than a week away. Unscientific on my part, I know. I hope I am wrong.
I can hear my other neighbours have got guests round again - not for the first time since the "lockdown" - and so I too struggle to believe this will work.
Think all of my circle are obeying. Loads of us had virtual drinks last night and more planned.
Please tell me that its the social element and not the drinks element that's virtual. The latter would be too much to bear.
Virtual in the sense we all dialled in to FaceTime/house party/ zoom ( I forget which!) and all had a Friday night chat and drinks over the multi video link thingy.
Got one to America tomorrow. We’re doing evening dinner while they do brunch.
Don’t know why we’ve never thought if it before.
'Cos it's too naff for words?
Forget naff - you actually get to drink that nice wine you brought.....
Er, isn't that quite easy - open the bottle and pour, Bob's your uncle.
However, I look at the green line on this and struggle to believe the UK deaths peak will be less than a week away. Unscientific on my part, I know. I hope I am wrong.
I can hear my other neighbours have got guests round again - not for the first time since the "lockdown" - and so I too struggle to believe this will work.
Think all of my circle are obeying. Loads of us had virtual drinks last night and more planned.
Please tell me that its the social element and not the drinks element that's virtual. The latter would be too much to bear.
Virtual in the sense we all dialled in to FaceTime/house party/ zoom ( I forget which!) and all had a Friday night chat and drinks over the multi video link thingy.
Got one to America tomorrow. We’re doing evening dinner while they do brunch.
Don’t know why we’ve never thought if it before.
'Cos it's too naff for words?
Well if you like. And no it’s not as good as reality, but right now we don’t have that choice.
I don’t mind bathing in a bit of naffness, if it’s harmless and it all helps us through. If the fashion police don’t like it, tough.
However, I look at the green line on this and struggle to believe the UK deaths peak will be less than a week away. Unscientific on my part, I know. I hope I am wrong.
I can hear my other neighbours have got guests round again - not for the first time since the "lockdown" - and so I too struggle to believe this will work.
I'd call the police on them, on the local line not the emergency one though. I do sympathise though, we used to have horrendous neighbours; it's hell in a situation like this to have shitty neighbours
Just back from walking the dog, ISTM that there are a lot fewer people out and about today. The weather isn’t quite as nice, although fairly decent this morning. I wonder whether the top trio having come down with the virus has made it real for more people?
Lovely day here for a change
Looks like independence is not going to happen no matter how much you 'will' it too Malc
Todays poll is evidence of the appreciation of the union by the Scots who recognise the strength of the union at times of national emergency
I have always maintained the Scots would not vote for independence, but covid 19 has ensured it
Weren't you recently humpfing about someone passing comment on a country in which they didn't live? Was it because you thought they didn't have right to stick their oar in or that they didn't have a clue, being so far away 'n' everything?
My family have an absolute right to comment on Scots independence and will continue to do so. My children and grandchildren are half Scots and are entitled to wear their kilts
Of course you may have some difficulty in understanding independence is over, but over it is
And by the way, I was schooled in Berwick on Tweed and have lived with the desire of some for independence since those days in the 1950's, and of course lived in Edinburgh and was married in Lossiemouth
Thinking someone has to be 'entitled' to be able to wear a kilt is a pretty good signifier of faux Jockism if ever I saw it. I have to break it to you that Chas & Dave could have worn kilts if they'd fancied it.
Still, at least we know that you think some people are permitted to pass comment from a distance and others not.
He said “their” rather than “a” - I’d read that as “their” tartan.
However, I look at the green line on this and struggle to believe the UK deaths peak will be less than a week away. Unscientific on my part, I know. I hope I am wrong.
I can hear my other neighbours have got guests round again - not for the first time since the "lockdown" - and so I too struggle to believe this will work.
Think all of my circle are obeying. Loads of us had virtual drinks last night and more planned.
Please tell me that its the social element and not the drinks element that's virtual. The latter would be too much to bear.
Virtual in the sense we all dialled in to FaceTime/house party/ zoom ( I forget which!) and all had a Friday night chat and drinks over the multi video link thingy.
Got one to America tomorrow. We’re doing evening dinner while they do brunch.
Don’t know why we’ve never thought if it before.
'Cos it's too naff for words?
Forget naff - you actually get to drink that nice wine you brought.....
Er, isn't that quite easy - open the bottle and pour, Bob's your uncle.
Depends if you only go to parties where your grip on the bottle is stronger than your host's ability to prise it away from you.....
Your point may be more effective if you don't precede it with a charmless, self important and arrogant introduction. Lighten up, and not for the first time perhaps don't judge people for not choosing to be as efficient in their density of useful information per post as your good self. Different strokes for different folks. People are quite capable of judging for themselves if quality maches quantity.
Stodge is normally very polite. He usually starts with a "Good morning" or "Good Afternoon".
Unfortunately the truth is somewhere in the middle. I try to be polite as often as I can and perhaps I'm too verbose in developing an argument but that's how I roll as a non-user of twitter.
I'm irritated that people who opine several times a day on matters political seem genuinely surprised Johnson and Sunak are scoring such high ratings and take the Conservative figure of 54% as some huge vote of confidence.
We go through this every time there's a crisis - people seem surprised leadership approval ratings spike up.
MY point is none of this is politically significant and once this is over the awkward questions may well start being asked such as who decided what, when and on what basis? Was the debate about the "herd immunity" business as usual theory held in Cabinet, at Cobra or elsewhere? Were the potential consequences of the "herd immunity" strategy in terms of deaths understood or explained? If so, by whom and when?
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
This was a fun snapshot of the British class system from the briefings yesterday:
Boris Johnson, PM (Oxford Union president 1986, Balliol) has coronavirus. So Michael Gove, his effective deputy (Oxford Union president 1988, LMH) takes press conference with Simon Stevens, NHS head (Oxford Union president 1987, Balliol).
It’s a massive improvement in social mobility that LMH gets a look in 😂
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
Your point may be more effective if you don't precede it with a charmless, self important and arrogant introduction. Lighten up, and not for the first time perhaps don't judge people for not choosing to be as efficient in their density of useful information per post as your good self. Different strokes for different folks. People are quite capable of judging for themselves if quality maches quantity.
Stodge is normally very polite. He usually starts with a "Good morning" or "Good Afternoon".
Unfortunately the truth is somewhere in the middle. I try to be polite as often as I can and perhaps I'm too verbose in developing an argument but that's how I roll as a non-user of twitter.
I'm irritated that people who opine several times a day on matters political seem genuinely surprised Johnson and Sunak are scoring such high ratings and take the Conservative figure of 54% as some huge vote of confidence.
We go through this every time there's a crisis - people seem surprised leadership approval ratings spike up.
MY point is none of this is politically significant and once this is over the awkward questions may well start being asked such as who decided what, when and on what basis? Was the debate about the "herd immunity" business as usual theory held in Cabinet, at Cobra or elsewhere? Were the potential consequences of the "herd immunity" strategy in terms of deaths understood or explained? If so, by whom and when?
On the gross politics of it, I'd ask why the Spanish Flu - despite being one of the most significant events of the 20th century - has almost no profile in the public mind. The answer seems to be that pandemics create such a visceral horror in the population that there is no incentive to dwell on them afterwards, and every incentive to forget.
I suspect that there will be little political capital to be gained by the Opposition from harping on about the details of herd immunity or who knew or did what and when. Essentially, everyone will be too happy to be out of lockdown and alive to do anything other than want to forget the whole ugly experience as quickly as possible. The Government will have to fuck up very, very badly indeed to pay a serious political price.
I'm still worried by what I saw this morning while on my daily forage for victuals.
Social distancing within stores but the people queuing to get into stores all bunched up together.
I'm also far from convinced those for whom English isn't a first language fully comprehend what is happening and what they need to do. Groups of men hanging round street corners smoking and drinking but if you are in a house of 15 to 20 and one of them is sick what can you do?
I'm also far from convinced the number of reported cases is anywhere near the number of actual cases.
There was the story the other day about an MP who was offered 1,000s of ventilators and why didn't the government take up the offer. It sounds like it is the total wild west and lots and lots of total scumbag agents promising all sort of dodgy stuff...we know Spain got caught buying 300,000 Chinese tests that were worse than useless and Italy with a delivery of kit from Russia in which 80% was totally unusable
Clearly the UK think their 3 strand approach is the safest option, but not without risks if Dyson or the other consortium making copies of an existing British model can't produce at the promised rate.
The one from Norfolk? That absolutely stank. I can well understand why the government steered well clear
What's your take on why the UK government have decided to not proceed with the scrapheap challenge models from G-Tech and Oxford? Just too risky?
Seems an odd decision to me. Given they are cheap, they say they can make 1000s a week of them, even if you use them until you get the real deal ones, surely it is better than nothing.
I’ve no idea but most likely they didn’t meet the specs on reliability. Where you are dealing with critical care equipment “good enough for now” doesn’t really cut it
This was a fun snapshot of the British class system from the briefings yesterday:
Boris Johnson, PM (Oxford Union president 1986, Balliol) has coronavirus. So Michael Gove, his effective deputy (Oxford Union president 1988, LMH) takes press conference with Simon Stevens, NHS head (Oxford Union president 1987, Balliol).
It’s a massive improvement in social mobility that LMH gets a look in 😂
Proof if proof were needed it ain’t what you know it’s who you know.
Your point may be more effective if you don't precede it with a charmless, self important and arrogant introduction. Lighten up, and not for the first time perhaps don't judge people for not choosing to be as efficient in their density of useful information per post as your good self. Different strokes for different folks. People are quite capable of judging for themselves if quality maches quantity.
Stodge is normally very polite. He usually starts with a "Good morning" or "Good Afternoon".
Unfortunately the truth is somewhere in the middle. I try to be polite as often as I can and perhaps I'm too verbose in developing an argument but that's how I roll as a non-user of twitter.
I'm irritated that people who opine several times a day on matters political seem genuinely surprised Johnson and Sunak are scoring such high ratings and take the Conservative figure of 54% as some huge vote of confidence.
We go through this every time there's a crisis - people seem surprised leadership approval ratings spike up.
MY point is none of this is politically significant and once this is over the awkward questions may well start being asked such as who decided what, when and on what basis? Was the debate about the "herd immunity" business as usual theory held in Cabinet, at Cobra or elsewhere? Were the potential consequences of the "herd immunity" strategy in terms of deaths understood or explained? If so, by whom and when?
On the gross politics of it, I'd ask why the Spanish Flu - despite being one of the most significant events of the 20th century - has almost no profile in the public mind. The answer seems to be that pandemics create such a visceral horror in the population that there is no incentive to dwell on them afterwards, and every incentive to forget.
I suspect that there will be little political capital to be gained by the Opposition from harping on about the details of herd immunity or who knew or did what and when. Essentially, everyone will be too happy to be out of lockdown and alive to do anything other than want to forget the whole ugly experience as quickly as possible. The Government will have to fuck up very, very badly indeed to pay a serious political price.
Surely, two reasons why Spanish Flu did not burn itself deeply into the public mind: 1) It was overshadowed by WW1 that immediatley preceeded it. 2) Epidemics were more prevelant 100 years ago.
If anybody needed reminding before todays figures, the next month or so at least is going to be very grim.
Yes - the peak is allegedly at least a couple of weeks off
For London....other parts of the country are 2-3 weeks behind. So I think we have to brace for appalling scenes first from the capital and then everywhere else on our screens for 4-5 weeks.
However, I look at the green line on this and struggle to believe the UK deaths peak will be less than a week away. Unscientific on my part, I know. I hope I am wrong.
I can hear my other neighbours have got guests round again - not for the first time since the "lockdown" - and so I too struggle to believe this will work.
Think all of my circle are obeying. Loads of us had virtual drinks last night and more planned.
Please tell me that its the social element and not the drinks element that's virtual. The latter would be too much to bear.
Virtual in the sense we all dialled in to FaceTime/house party/ zoom ( I forget which!) and all had a Friday night chat and drinks over the multi video link thingy.
Got one to America tomorrow. We’re doing evening dinner while they do brunch.
Don’t know why we’ve never thought if it before.
'Cos it's too naff for words?
Forget naff - you actually get to drink that nice wine you brought.....
Er, isn't that quite easy - open the bottle and pour, Bob's your uncle.
Depends if you only go to parties where your grip on the bottle is stronger than your host's ability to prise it away from you.....
That would be an incredible result but I fear that if the model is largely based on China's "actual" results it may prove to be optimistic.
China is desperately trying to save face and salvage its international reputation. I would be amazed if their cumulative death figures are anywhere near accurate.
There are better epidemiologists on PB than at Imperial
UCL is a dump.
To be fair, they were not epidemiologists. The model was naive and not based on anything to do with epidemic modelling, so really unfair to equate it to the work of Neil Ferguson et al., who are absolute pros at this...
It is quite likely that we are now four years from Dissolution at end of March 2024 for an election on 2nd May.
I don't necessarily see why an autumn election should be off the cards, now that the May/June fetish has been broken. Personally, I'd go for December again, just for the lolz (plus the fact that short days and bad weather hinder the Opposition campaign).
That would be an incredible result but I fear that if the model is largely based on China's "actual" results it may prove to be optimistic.
It would be incredible, and like you I think it is optimistic
So the question is: how many REALLY died in China
I have absolutely no doubt the Chinese figures are wrong. However, the Chinese people are able to comment on what is going on online in a variety of ways that circumvent the system (as we saw in December and January) and there isn’t any hint of the level of fatalities, 300,000, you posted earlier. Many law and other firms (mine included) have offices in Mainland China and they are unanimous that things have improved dramatically.
I don't dispute things have improved (although there was a big increase in cases in HK today). If you factor in that maybe 80% of the deaths were amongst the elderly and economically inactive with serious existing conditions would it be so obvious to those trading there? 300K out of 1.3bn is about 0.02% if I have got all my zeroes are all in the right place.
But it’s almost all in one place, so the 1.3bn is really irrelevant.
Well that's if you believe the figures for the rest of China. Given how this thing has spread right around the world the claim to have prevented material spread within a country is one of their more remarkable claims.
There are better epidemiologists on PB than at Imperial
UCL is a dump.
To be fair, they were not epidemiologists. The model was naive and not based on anything to do with epidemic modelling, so really unfair to equate it to the work of Neil Ferguson et al., who are absolute pros at this...
I'm still worried by what I saw this morning while on my daily forage for victuals.
Social distancing within stores but the people queuing to get into stores all bunched up together.
I'm also far from convinced those for whom English isn't a first language fully comprehend what is happening and what they need to do. Groups of men hanging round street corners smoking and drinking but if you are in a house of 15 to 20 and one of them is sick what can you do?
I'm also far from convinced the number of reported cases is anywhere near the number of actual cases.
I think the experts are very clear on fact that totals infected are way higher than the official numbers
This was a fun snapshot of the British class system from the briefings yesterday:
Boris Johnson, PM (Oxford Union president 1986, Balliol) has coronavirus. So Michael Gove, his effective deputy (Oxford Union president 1988, LMH) takes press conference with Simon Stevens, NHS head (Oxford Union president 1987, Balliol).
It’s a massive improvement in social mobility that LMH gets a look in 😂
Proof if proof were needed it ain’t what you know it’s who you know.
And you need to know something to get into LMH and Balliol to meet the people you need to know in the first place
That would be an incredible result but I fear that if the model is largely based on China's "actual" results it may prove to be optimistic.
It would be incredible, and like you I think it is optimistic
So the question is: how many REALLY died in China
I have absolutely no doubt the Chinese figures are wrong. However, the Chinese people are able to comment on what is going on online in a variety of ways that circumvent the system (as we saw in December and January) and there isn’t any hint of the level of fatalities, 300,000, you posted earlier. Many law and other firms (mine included) have offices in Mainland China and they are unanimous that things have improved dramatically.
I don't dispute things have improved (although there was a big increase in cases in HK today). If you factor in that maybe 80% of the deaths were amongst the elderly and economically inactive with serious existing conditions would it be so obvious to those trading there? 300K out of 1.3bn is about 0.02% if I have got all my zeroes are all in the right place.
But it’s almost all in one place, so the 1.3bn is really irrelevant.
Well that's if you believe the figures for the rest of China. Given how this thing has spread right around the world the claim to have prevented material spread within a country is one of their more remarkable claims.
Didn’t they essentially quarantine the city, and then do partial lockdowns elsewhere?
There are better epidemiologists on PB than at Imperial
UCL is a dump.
To be fair, they were not epidemiologists. The model was naive and not based on anything to do with epidemic modelling, so really unfair to equate it to the work of Neil Ferguson et al., who are absolute pros at this...
This was a fun snapshot of the British class system from the briefings yesterday:
Boris Johnson, PM (Oxford Union president 1986, Balliol) has coronavirus. So Michael Gove, his effective deputy (Oxford Union president 1988, LMH) takes press conference with Simon Stevens, NHS head (Oxford Union president 1987, Balliol).
It’s a massive improvement in social mobility that LMH gets a look in 😂
I remember having to walk there a couple of times - it felt like I was on a voyage to the moon...
There are better epidemiologists on PB than at Imperial
What would be fair to say is that there are many on here who are going to interpret academic research on probability, statistics and modelling far better than the main stream media. Its harder to know what the underlying skills of the academics are in prediction as we just get the version filtered through media or sometimes academic papers, but dont get the opportunity to question them in detail or explore their assumptions.
There are better epidemiologists on PB than at Imperial
UCL is a dump.
To be fair, they were not epidemiologists. The model was naive and not based on anything to do with epidemic modelling, so really unfair to equate it to the work of Neil Ferguson et al., who are absolute pros at this...
Why in God's name are they publicising it then?
I don't think Imperial were to be fair...
Maybe a better question is, why are they even making these naive models in the first place? Seems highly irresponsible.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
I think the experts are very clear on fact that totals infected are way higher than the official numbers
I fear there are people who will die alone, unaided, as a result of this. I fear there are those who will try to manage their illness at home without outside help and hope their family or house mates can help them if things get bad.
There was the story the other day about an MP who was offered 1,000s of ventilators and why didn't the government take up the offer. It sounds like it is the total wild west and lots and lots of total scumbag agents promising all sort of dodgy stuff...we know Spain got caught buying 300,000 Chinese tests that were worse than useless and Italy with a delivery of kit from Russia in which 80% was totally unusable
Clearly the UK think their 3 strand approach is the safest option, but not without risks if Dyson or the other consortium making copies of an existing British model can't produce at the promised rate.
The one from Norfolk? That absolutely stank. I can well understand why the government steered well clear
What's your take on why the UK government have decided to not proceed with the scrapheap challenge models from G-Tech and Oxford? Just too risky?
Seems an odd decision to me. Given they are cheap, they say they can make 1000s a week of them, even if you use them until you get the real deal ones, surely it is better than nothing.
I’ve no idea but most likely they didn’t meet the specs on reliability. Where you are dealing with critical care equipment “good enough for now” doesn’t really cut it
Plus concerns about using capacity for various materials.
The Government seems to be using a three pronged strategy on ventilators -
1) Max out capacity from existing vendors to the NHS 2) Build existing designs elsewhere 3) Build a new design.
I think it quite possible that a selling point for the design chosen for (3) would be that it didn't use materials or components that either (1) or (2) used, or other medical equipment used.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
I was sentbthis today. No idea of whether it is correct or spam
This is a text from an NHS worker
As of tomorrow, do not leave home for bread for anything! Because the worst begins tomorrow as the incubation date is met and many people that are positive with the virus start to peak!! It’s at this time other people are most vulnerable! so it is very important to stay home and not to be in contact with anybody, even members of your family if possible!! Being very careful is very important and very crucial at this time!!
As from tomorrow we are going to see the start of the peak of those that are positive, then there will be two weeks of calm and then two weeks where it decreases.
* What happened in Italy is that they neglected the contagion period and that is why all the cases turned out together and so badly, plus they didn’t know what they were dealing with *.
* And finally, please do not receive visits from anyone, not even from the same family. This is all for the good of all. *
WE WILL BE IN THE MAXIMUM STAGE OF INFECTION.
* DO NOT HOLD ON TO THIS MESSAGE, PASS IT ON TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS *
Your point may be more effective if you don't precede it with a charmless, self important and arrogant introduction. Lighten up, and not for the first time perhaps don't judge people for not choosing to be as efficient in their density of useful information per post as your good self. Different strokes for different folks. People are quite capable of judging for themselves if quality maches quantity.
Stodge is normally very polite. He usually starts with a "Good morning" or "Good Afternoon".
Unfortunately the truth is somewhere in the middle. I try to be polite as often as I can and perhaps I'm too verbose in developing an argument but that's how I roll as a non-user of twitter.
I'm irritated that people who opine several times a day on matters political seem genuinely surprised Johnson and Sunak are scoring such high ratings and take the Conservative figure of 54% as some huge vote of confidence.
We go through this every time there's a crisis - people seem surprised leadership approval ratings spike up.
MY point is none of this is politically significant and once this is over the awkward questions may well start being asked such as who decided what, when and on what basis? Was the debate about the "herd immunity" business as usual theory held in Cabinet, at Cobra or elsewhere? Were the potential consequences of the "herd immunity" strategy in terms of deaths understood or explained? If so, by whom and when?
On the gross politics of it, I'd ask why the Spanish Flu - despite being one of the most significant events of the 20th century - has almost no profile in the public mind. The answer seems to be that pandemics create such a visceral horror in the population that there is no incentive to dwell on them afterwards, and every incentive to forget.
I suspect that there will be little political capital to be gained by the Opposition from harping on about the details of herd immunity or who knew or did what and when. Essentially, everyone will be too happy to be out of lockdown and alive to do anything other than want to forget the whole ugly experience as quickly as possible. The Government will have to fuck up very, very badly indeed to pay a serious political price.
Surely, two reasons why Spanish Flu did not burn itself deeply into the public mind: 1) It was overshadowed by WW1 that immediatley preceeded it. 2) Epidemics were more prevelant 100 years ago.
I don't think that's an adequate explanation. The death toll from it easily eclipsed that of WW1 itself - and yet the war lives on vividly in the public mind whilst the Flu is all but forgotten. And even by the standards of the time, it was one hell of an exceptional pandemic.
This was a fun snapshot of the British class system from the briefings yesterday:
Boris Johnson, PM (Oxford Union president 1986, Balliol) has coronavirus. So Michael Gove, his effective deputy (Oxford Union president 1988, LMH) takes press conference with Simon Stevens, NHS head (Oxford Union president 1987, Balliol).
It’s a massive improvement in social mobility that LMH gets a look in 😂
Proof if proof were needed it ain’t what you know it’s who you know.
And you need to know someone to get into LMH and Balliol to meet the people you need to know in the first place
That would be an incredible result but I fear that if the model is largely based on China's "actual" results it may prove to be optimistic.
China is desperately trying to save face and salvage its international reputation. I would be amazed if their cumulative death figures are anywhere near accurate.
China's got to stop eating fad shit (for certain and for ever) if it wants to salvage its reputation
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
We should definitely not confuse the two, and Ferguson certainly has never talked about such low numbers. The most optimistic forecast he has given was hopefully we stay below 20,000 and that he thinks that is looking likely.
If anybody needed reminding before todays figures, the next month or so at least is going to be very grim.
Yes - the peak is allegedly at least a couple of weeks off
For London....other parts of the country are 2-3 weeks behind. So I think we have to brace for appalling scenes first from the capital and then everywhere else on our screens for 4-5 weeks.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
But that's what people have been discussing in this thread, and in the tweet quoted by TSE.
All I can see here is a lot of people thinking wrongly that it comes from the modelling of the Ferguson group at Imperial, and mouthing off on that basis.
I think the experts are very clear on fact that totals infected are way higher than the official numbers
I fear there are people who will die alone, unaided, as a result of this. I fear there are those who will try to manage their illness at home without outside help and hope their family or house mates can help them if things get bad.
I think that will happen and its not impossible that we will see scenes like in Spain where staff abandon the elderly in care homes after an outbreak
Even our Government is only counting deaths that occur in hospital and I would hope we are a far more open society than China.
This was a fun snapshot of the British class system from the briefings yesterday:
Boris Johnson, PM (Oxford Union president 1986, Balliol) has coronavirus. So Michael Gove, his effective deputy (Oxford Union president 1988, LMH) takes press conference with Simon Stevens, NHS head (Oxford Union president 1987, Balliol).
It’s a massive improvement in social mobility that LMH gets a look in 😂
Proof if proof were needed it ain’t what you know it’s who you know.
And you need to know someone to get into LMH and Balliol to meet the people you need to know in the first place
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
But that's what people have been discussing in this thread, and in the tweet quoted by TSE.
All I can see here is a lot of people thinking wrongly that it comes from the modelling of the Ferguson group at Imperial, and mouthing off on that basis.
I don't think anyone has suggested it came from Ferguson's group.
I'm still worried by what I saw this morning while on my daily forage for victuals.
Social distancing within stores but the people queuing to get into stores all bunched up together.
I'm also far from convinced those for whom English isn't a first language fully comprehend what is happening and what they need to do. Groups of men hanging round street corners smoking and drinking but if you are in a house of 15 to 20 and one of them is sick what can you do?
I'm also far from convinced the number of reported cases is anywhere near the number of actual cases.
This is why London is likely to be hit harder by the virus than elsewhere.
That would be an incredible result but I fear that if the model is largely based on China's "actual" results it may prove to be optimistic.
China is desperately trying to save face and salvage its international reputation. I would be amazed if their cumulative death figures are anywhere near accurate.
I agree. The problem is that they have seriously underestimated how bad this would be in western countries with advanced medical systems and their figures look increasingly incredible. Their figures for the rest of China outside Wuhan, particularly so.
I remind myself that only yesterday the comment sections on the Daily Mail site were saying this is a scare story by the NWO to set up a global government.......
I remind myself that only yesterday the comment sections on the Daily Mail site were saying this is a scare story by the NWO to set up a global government.......
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
But that's what people have been discussing in this thread, and in the tweet quoted by TSE.
All I can see here is a lot of people thinking wrongly that it comes from the modelling of the Ferguson group at Imperial, and mouthing off on that basis.
I don't think anyone has suggested it came from Ferguson's group.
Look at Freedman's tweet, describing it as "the best case Imperial model"!
In fact it's not a model at all - it's just shifting the Chinese curve into alignment with the curves from other countries.
It's concerning that a coroner apparently decided to class a death as linked to coronavirus just because there was a report of the victim having coughed. I hope this isn't happening in other places. If so the figures may be higher than they should be.
I'm still worried by what I saw this morning while on my daily forage for victuals.
Social distancing within stores but the people queuing to get into stores all bunched up together.
I'm also far from convinced those for whom English isn't a first language fully comprehend what is happening and what they need to do. Groups of men hanging round street corners smoking and drinking but if you are in a house of 15 to 20 and one of them is sick what can you do?
I'm also far from convinced the number of reported cases is anywhere near the number of actual cases.
We have a security guard enforcing 2 metre apart queing at Epping Tesco
I remind myself that only yesterday the comment sections on the Daily Mail site were saying this is a scare story by the NWO to set up a global government.......
Peter Hitchens still thinks that
I'm surprised he hasn't yet proclaimed a link between contracting COVID-19 and marijuana use.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
I was sentbthis today. No idea of whether it is correct or spam
This is a text from an NHS worker
As of tomorrow, do not leave home for bread for anything! Because the worst begins tomorrow as the incubation date is met and many people that are positive with the virus start to peak!! It’s at this time other people are most vulnerable! so it is very important to stay home and not to be in contact with anybody, even members of your family if possible!! Being very careful is very important and very crucial at this time!!
As from tomorrow we are going to see the start of the peak of those that are positive, then there will be two weeks of calm and then two weeks where it decreases.
* What happened in Italy is that they neglected the contagion period and that is why all the cases turned out together and so badly, plus they didn’t know what they were dealing with *.
* And finally, please do not receive visits from anyone, not even from the same family. This is all for the good of all. *
WE WILL BE IN THE MAXIMUM STAGE OF INFECTION.
* DO NOT HOLD ON TO THIS MESSAGE, PASS IT ON TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS *
Had that off different people on WhatsApp every day this week
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
We should definitely not confuse the two, and Ferguson certainly has never talked about such low numbers. The most optimistic forecast he has given was hopefully we stay below 20,000 and that he thinks that is looking likely.
Has anyone heard Pike et al say that table reflects their thoughts on what is expected to happen? Or is it them showing what would happen if countries followed the declared trajectory of China. I strongly suspect its the latter and that even the author doesnt think of it as their best estimate.
If anybody needed reminding before todays figures, the next month or so at least is going to be very grim.
Yes - the peak is allegedly at least a couple of weeks off
For London....other parts of the country are 2-3 weeks behind. So I think we have to brace for appalling scenes first from the capital and then everywhere else on our screens for 4-5 weeks.
I'm still worried by what I saw this morning while on my daily forage for victuals.
Social distancing within stores but the people queuing to get into stores all bunched up together.
I'm also far from convinced those for whom English isn't a first language fully comprehend what is happening and what they need to do. Groups of men hanging round street corners smoking and drinking but if you are in a house of 15 to 20 and one of them is sick what can you do?
I'm also far from convinced the number of reported cases is anywhere near the number of actual cases.
We have a security guard enforcing 2 metre apart queing at Epping Tesco
They have very good ad they are running so have to live up to it
@alterego 13 deaths without underlying medical problems. (unless I have misread the final sentence).
All of those were over 60. And that's just diagnosed medical problems. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these cases had undiagnosed conditions e.g. diabetes.
Your point may be more effective if you don't precede it with a charmless, self important and arrogant introduction. Lighten up, and not for the first time perhaps don't judge people for not choosing to be as efficient in their density of useful information per post as your good self. Different strokes for different folks. People are quite capable of judging for themselves if quality maches quantity.
Stodge is normally very polite. He usually starts with a "Good morning" or "Good Afternoon".
Unfortunately the truth is somewhere in the middle. I try to be polite as often as I can and perhaps I'm too verbose in developing an argument but that's how I roll as a non-user of twitter.
I'm irritated that people who opine several times a day on matters political seem genuinely surprised Johnson and Sunak are scoring such high ratings and take the Conservative figure of 54% as some huge vote of confidence.
We go through this every time there's a crisis - people seem surprised leadership approval ratings spike up.
MY point is none of this is politically significant and once this is over the awkward questions may well start being asked such as who decided what, when and on what basis? Was the debate about the "herd immunity" business as usual theory held in Cabinet, at Cobra or elsewhere? Were the potential consequences of the "herd immunity" strategy in terms of deaths understood or explained? If so, by whom and when?
On the gross politics of it, I'd ask why the Spanish Flu - despite being one of the most significant events of the 20th century - has almost no profile in the public mind. The answer seems to be that pandemics create such a visceral horror in the population that there is no incentive to dwell on them afterwards, and every incentive to forget.
I suspect that there will be little political capital to be gained by the Opposition from harping on about the details of herd immunity or who knew or did what and when. Essentially, everyone will be too happy to be out of lockdown and alive to do anything other than want to forget the whole ugly experience as quickly as possible. The Government will have to fuck up very, very badly indeed to pay a serious political price.
Surely, two reasons why Spanish Flu did not burn itself deeply into the public mind: 1) It was overshadowed by WW1 that immediatley preceeded it. 2) Epidemics were more prevelant 100 years ago.
There was a fair amount going on at the time too, to distract. Newly independent countries emerging, the Greco-Turkish war, Russian Revolution and Civil War, revolutions in other European countries, Treaty of Versailles negotiations, and closer to home, Irish war of independence.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
But that's what people have been discussing in this thread, and in the tweet quoted by TSE.
All I can see here is a lot of people thinking wrongly that it comes from the modelling of the Ferguson group at Imperial, and mouthing off on that basis.
I don't think anyone has suggested it came from Ferguson's group.
Look at Freedman's tweet, describing it as "the best case Imperial model"!
In fact it's not a model at all - it's just shifting the Chinese curve into alignment with the curves from other countries.
Ah, I thought you were referring to PBers. Yes. If anything this highlights how suspect the Chinese numbers actually are.
If anybody needed reminding before todays figures, the next month or so at least is going to be very grim.
Yes - the peak is allegedly at least a couple of weeks off
For London....other parts of the country are 2-3 weeks behind. So I think we have to brace for appalling scenes first from the capital and then everywhere else on our screens for 4-5 weeks.
I don't understand the rationale here - the lockdown takes place at the same time everywhere - hence you will, approximately, have peaks at the same time everywhere. The timing of the peak is a direct function of the measures you put in place - as these have been implemented nationally the peaks should be roughly synchronous. What will differ is that the amplitude of the peak will be larger in those areas that started with more cases once the lockdown was implemented.
Re Covid 19 - could see the fall of football as we know it
Yesterday Sky allowed me to pause their sports subscription and today BT have credited one month sport subscription with further reviews
Assuming wholesale cancellation of sports subscriptions are happening now just how many will reinstate their full packages when sport returns, but maybe of an even wider concern to subscription channels is where will the money come from to afford them from the populace. I can see a large uptake of freeview
I assume the broadcasters will litigate over broken contracts but the obscene flow of money into football is going to come to a juddering halt.
Many clubs , including famous ones, will not survive this going forward
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
I was sentbthis today. No idea of whether it is correct or spam
This is a text from an NHS worker
As of tomorrow, do not leave home for bread for anything! Because the worst begins tomorrow as the incubation date is met and many people that are positive with the virus start to peak!! It’s at this time other people are most vulnerable! so it is very important to stay home and not to be in contact with anybody, even members of your family if possible!! Being very careful is very important and very crucial at this time!!
As from tomorrow we are going to see the start of the peak of those that are positive, then there will be two weeks of calm and then two weeks where it decreases.
* What happened in Italy is that they neglected the contagion period and that is why all the cases turned out together and so badly, plus they didn’t know what they were dealing with *.
* And finally, please do not receive visits from anyone, not even from the same family. This is all for the good of all. *
WE WILL BE IN THE MAXIMUM STAGE OF INFECTION.
* DO NOT HOLD ON TO THIS MESSAGE, PASS IT ON TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS *
Had that off different people on WhatsApp every day this week
There is no such thing as a specific incubation date.
If you stay indoors with no contact with the outside world (no deliveries even) after 14 days you could say that you would be virtually proof against getting it. Until you start contacting the outside world again...
That would be an incredible result but I fear that if the model is largely based on China's "actual" results it may prove to be optimistic.
China is desperately trying to save face and salvage its international reputation. I would be amazed if their cumulative death figures are anywhere near accurate.
I agree. The problem is that they have seriously underestimated how bad this would be in western countries with advanced medical systems and their figures look increasingly incredible. Their figures for the rest of China outside Wuhan, particularly so.
I am sure initially there was probably a fair bit of thought that less developed healthcare, high levels of smoking and pollution and incredibly high density housing would mean the Chinese higher death rates would be higher than the West.
This was a fun snapshot of the British class system from the briefings yesterday:
Boris Johnson, PM (Oxford Union president 1986, Balliol) has coronavirus. So Michael Gove, his effective deputy (Oxford Union president 1988, LMH) takes press conference with Simon Stevens, NHS head (Oxford Union president 1987, Balliol).
It’s a massive improvement in social mobility that LMH gets a look in 😂
Proof if proof were needed it ain’t what you know it’s who you know.
And you need to know someone to get into LMH and Balliol to meet the people you need to know in the first place
Similar sort of progression for UK daily cases as we've seen elsewhere - this is since we hit 100 cases (ignore that the trendline is linear, just put in there to compare daily variance with the different time periods)
I'm still worried by what I saw this morning while on my daily forage for victuals.
Social distancing within stores but the people queuing to get into stores all bunched up together.
I'm also far from convinced those for whom English isn't a first language fully comprehend what is happening and what they need to do. Groups of men hanging round street corners smoking and drinking but if you are in a house of 15 to 20 and one of them is sick what can you do?
I'm also far from convinced the number of reported cases is anywhere near the number of actual cases.
This is why London is likely to be hit harder by the virus than elsewhere.
Also wtf is he doing going out on a 'daily forage for victuals'? And he's worried that some ethnic groups don't understand what is happening. Why on earth would a sane sentient person choose to go out on to the streets DAILY in the midst of a highly contagious pandemic.?
If anybody needed reminding before todays figures, the next month or so at least is going to be very grim.
Yes - the peak is allegedly at least a couple of weeks off
For London....other parts of the country are 2-3 weeks behind. So I think we have to brace for appalling scenes first from the capital and then everywhere else on our screens for 4-5 weeks.
I don't understand the rationale here - the lockdown takes place at the same time everywhere - hence you will, approximately, have peaks at the same time everywhere. The timing of the peak is a direct function of the measures you put in place - as these have been implemented nationally the peaks should be roughly synchronous. What will differ is that the amplitude of the peak will be larger in those areas that started with more cases once the lockdown was implemented.
The lockdown doesn't reduce transmission by 100% and won't be equally effective everywhere.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
But that's what people have been discussing in this thread, and in the tweet quoted by TSE.
All I can see here is a lot of people thinking wrongly that it comes from the modelling of the Ferguson group at Imperial, and mouthing off on that basis.
I don't think anyone has suggested it came from Ferguson's group.
Look at Freedman's tweet, describing it as "the best case Imperial model"!
In fact it's not a model at all - it's just shifting the Chinese curve into alignment with the curves from other countries.
Ah, I thought you were referring to PBers. Yes. If anything this highlights how suspect the Chinese numbers actually are.
For heaven's sake, I replied to the post quoting that tweet, pointing out that the Imperial College models were looking at a range of assumptions, so it would hardly be surprising if we were worse than the "best case", and you yourself replied: "Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330."
Obviously you thought it came from the Imperial College models yourself!
I remind myself that only yesterday the comment sections on the Daily Mail site were saying this is a scare story by the NWO to set up a global government.......
Peter Hitchens still thinks that
I'm surprised he hasn't yet proclaimed a link between contracting COVID-19 and marijuana use.
He has been on question time about 26 times, it seems the more extreme and ridiculous you can be, the more likely you are to be invited back.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
But that's what people have been discussing in this thread, and in the tweet quoted by TSE.
All I can see here is a lot of people thinking wrongly that it comes from the modelling of the Ferguson group at Imperial, and mouthing off on that basis.
I don't think anyone has suggested it came from Ferguson's group.
Look at Freedman's tweet, describing it as "the best case Imperial model"!
In fact it's not a model at all - it's just shifting the Chinese curve into alignment with the curves from other countries.
Ah, I thought you were referring to PBers. Yes. If anything this highlights how suspect the Chinese numbers actually are.
For heaven's sake, I replied to the post quoting that tweet, pointing out that the Imperial College models were looking at a range of assumptions, so it would hardly be surprising if we were worse than the "best case", and you yourself replied: "Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330."
Obviously you thought it came from the Imperial College models yourself!
Huh? I was referring to the same model in the tweet, unless Ferguson's group also predicted 260 cases per day as the peak in their best case?
Your point may be more effective if you don't precede it with a charmless, self important and arrogant introduction. Lighten up, and not for the first time perhaps don't judge people for not choosing to be as efficient in their density of useful information per post as your good self. Different strokes for different folks. People are quite capable of judging for themselves if quality maches quantity.
Stodge is normally very polite. He usually starts with a "Good morning" or "Good Afternoon".
Unfortunately the truth is somewhere in the middle. I try to be polite as often as I can and perhaps I'm too verbose in developing an argument but that's how I roll as a non-user of twitter.
I'm irritated that people who opine several times a day on matters political seem genuinely surprised Johnson and Sunak are scoring such high ratings and take the Conservative figure of 54% as some huge vote of confidence.
We go through this every time there's a crisis - people seem surprised leadership approval ratings spike up.
MY point is none of this is politically significant and once this is over the awkward questions may well start being asked such as who decided what, when and on what basis? Was the debate about the "herd immunity" business as usual theory held in Cabinet, at Cobra or elsewhere? Were the potential consequences of the "herd immunity" strategy in terms of deaths understood or explained? If so, by whom and when?
On the gross politics of it, I'd ask why the Spanish Flu - despite being one of the most significant events of the 20th century - has almost no profile in the public mind. The answer seems to be that pandemics create such a visceral horror in the population that there is no incentive to dwell on them afterwards, and every incentive to forget.
I suspect that there will be little political capital to be gained by the Opposition from harping on about the details of herd immunity or who knew or did what and when. Essentially, everyone will be too happy to be out of lockdown and alive to do anything other than want to forget the whole ugly experience as quickly as possible. The Government will have to fuck up very, very badly indeed to pay a serious political price.
Surely, two reasons why Spanish Flu did not burn itself deeply into the public mind: 1) It was overshadowed by WW1 that immediatley preceeded it. 2) Epidemics were more prevelant 100 years ago.
I don't think that's an adequate explanation. The death toll from it easily eclipsed that of WW1 itself - and yet the war lives on vividly in the public mind whilst the Flu is all but forgotten. And even by the standards of the time, it was one hell of an exceptional pandemic.
Pretty much everyone who studies history at school studies WW1, its causes, futility, poetry etc. The Spanish flu was never mentioned in my history class and even now it shocks. The estimates are 220-230k dead in the UK alone in a much, much smaller population than we have now. But almost no one is left alive to talk about it.
It's actually a very good example of the dangers of forgetting our past. If it was taught at school instead of WW1 I suspect people would have been much more alive to the comparatively modest risks of Covid-19. I think it should be.
If anybody needed reminding before todays figures, the next month or so at least is going to be very grim.
Yes - the peak is allegedly at least a couple of weeks off
For London....other parts of the country are 2-3 weeks behind. So I think we have to brace for appalling scenes first from the capital and then everywhere else on our screens for 4-5 weeks.
I don't understand the rationale here - the lockdown takes place at the same time everywhere - hence you will, approximately, have peaks at the same time everywhere. The timing of the peak is a direct function of the measures you put in place - as these have been implemented nationally the peaks should be roughly synchronous. What will differ is that the amplitude of the peak will be larger in those areas that started with more cases once the lockdown was implemented.
The lockdown doesn't reduce transmission by 100% and won't be equally effective everywhere.
It should be more effective outside the big cities I'd have thought where physical interaction can be minimised further than it can say in London (No tube, more private vehicles).
That would be an incredible result but I fear that if the model is largely based on China's "actual" results it may prove to be optimistic.
China is desperately trying to save face and salvage its international reputation. I would be amazed if their cumulative death figures are anywhere near accurate.
China's got to stop eating fad shit (for certain and for ever) if it wants to salvage its reputation
I understand that live markets have been banned but will it just go underground? I expect so.
IIUC Sars, Covid-19, HIV-Aids and Ebola all caused by species-jumping disease from eating wild animals. Will humans learn their lesson. No.
Why do people find it so, so hard to understand the very basic fact that the Imperial College modelling is producing a range of predictions based on different conditions?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330.
But that's what people have been discussing in this thread, and in the tweet quoted by TSE.
All I can see here is a lot of people thinking wrongly that it comes from the modelling of the Ferguson group at Imperial, and mouthing off on that basis.
I don't think anyone has suggested it came from Ferguson's group.
Look at Freedman's tweet, describing it as "the best case Imperial model"!
In fact it's not a model at all - it's just shifting the Chinese curve into alignment with the curves from other countries.
Ah, I thought you were referring to PBers. Yes. If anything this highlights how suspect the Chinese numbers actually are.
For heaven's sake, I replied to the post quoting that tweet, pointing out that the Imperial College models were looking at a range of assumptions, so it would hardly be surprising if we were worse than the "best case", and you yourself replied: "Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330."
Obviously you thought it came from the Imperial College models yourself!
Huh? I was referring to the same model in the tweet, unless Ferguson's group also predicted 260 cases per day as the peak in their best case?
I repeat. You were replying to my comment that because the IC models looked at a range of assumptions it wouldn't be surprising if we worse than the "best case" they looked at. And you replied "Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330." Clearly you thought 260 came from the IC models.
If anybody needed reminding before todays figures, the next month or so at least is going to be very grim.
Yes - the peak is allegedly at least a couple of weeks off
For London....other parts of the country are 2-3 weeks behind. So I think we have to brace for appalling scenes first from the capital and then everywhere else on our screens for 4-5 weeks.
I don't understand the rationale here - the lockdown takes place at the same time everywhere - hence you will, approximately, have peaks at the same time everywhere. The timing of the peak is a direct function of the measures you put in place - as these have been implemented nationally the peaks should be roughly synchronous. What will differ is that the amplitude of the peak will be larger in those areas that started with more cases once the lockdown was implemented.
The lockdown doesn't reduce transmission by 100% and won't be equally effective everywhere.
Of course. But there is no reason to think London will be ahead of the rest of the country. It will be roughly synchronous everywhere. Indeed, for some reasons laid out here, it might take longer in London if social distancing is being less well carried out in the capital.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1243901924786790400
Sometimes getting in a odd jibe is all part of the cut and thrust of what passes for debate on here.
260 deaths since yesterday in UK.
I'm irritated that people who opine several times a day on matters political seem genuinely surprised Johnson and Sunak are scoring such high ratings and take the Conservative figure of 54% as some huge vote of confidence.
We go through this every time there's a crisis - people seem surprised leadership approval ratings spike up.
MY point is none of this is politically significant and once this is over the awkward questions may well start being asked such as who decided what, when and on what basis? Was the debate about the "herd immunity" business as usual theory held in Cabinet, at Cobra or elsewhere? Were the potential consequences of the "herd immunity" strategy in terms of deaths understood or explained? If so, by whom and when?
For example, is Germany 9 days behind Italy (cases) or 21 days behind Italy (deaths). It can't be both surely?
It's hardly surprising that we are doing worse than the "best case" model. By definition of "best case". Is it perhaps a problem with understanding English rather than Maths?
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1243243397281972225
I suspect that there will be little political capital to be gained by the Opposition from harping on about the details of herd immunity or who knew or did what and when. Essentially, everyone will be too happy to be out of lockdown and alive to do anything other than want to forget the whole ugly experience as quickly as possible. The Government will have to fuck up very, very badly indeed to pay a serious political price.
Social distancing within stores but the people queuing to get into stores all bunched up together.
I'm also far from convinced those for whom English isn't a first language fully comprehend what is happening and what they need to do. Groups of men hanging round street corners smoking and drinking but if you are in a house of 15 to 20 and one of them is sick what can you do?
I'm also far from convinced the number of reported cases is anywhere near the number of actual cases.
1) It was overshadowed by WW1 that immediatley preceeded it.
2) Epidemics were more prevelant 100 years ago.
I don't think Imperial were to be fair...
Adil El Tayar was an organ transplant consultant who worked in two of London's biggest hospitals - St Mary's and St George's.
Dr El Tayar died on March 25 at West Middlesex University Hospital in west London.
He had been self-isolating after noticing symptoms in mid-March.
He was admitted to hospital on 20 March.
I believe he is actually the second as I understand a doctor in Southend has died too
It's from a preprint by one W. T. Pike of Imperial College and one V. Saini of "the Lown Institute" in Brookline, Massachusetts:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.25.20041475v1.full.pdf
The Government seems to be using a three pronged strategy on ventilators -
1) Max out capacity from existing vendors to the NHS
2) Build existing designs elsewhere
3) Build a new design.
I think it quite possible that a selling point for the design chosen for (3) would be that it didn't use materials or components that either (1) or (2) used, or other medical equipment used.
This is a text from an NHS worker
As of tomorrow, do not leave home for bread for anything! Because the worst begins tomorrow as the incubation date is met and many people that are positive with the virus start to peak!! It’s at this time other people are most vulnerable! so it is very important to stay home and not to be in contact with anybody, even members of your family if possible!! Being very careful is very important and very crucial at this time!!
As from tomorrow we are going to see the start of the peak of those that are positive, then there will be two weeks of calm and then two weeks where it decreases.
* What happened in Italy is that they neglected the contagion period and that is why all the cases turned out together and so badly, plus they didn’t know what they were dealing with *.
* And finally, please do not receive visits from anyone, not even from the same family. This is all for the good of all. *
WE WILL BE IN THE MAXIMUM STAGE OF INFECTION.
* DO NOT HOLD ON TO THIS MESSAGE, PASS IT ON TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS *
@alterego
13 deaths without underlying medical problems. (unless I have misread the final sentence).
https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1243864669258997760?s=20
Even our Government is only counting deaths that occur in hospital and I would hope we are a far more open society than China.
In fact it's not a model at all - it's just shifting the Chinese curve into alignment with the curves from other countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/chloe-middleton-death-21-year-old-not-recorded-nhs-covid-19-related
Yesterday Sky allowed me to pause their sports subscription and today BT have credited one month sport subscription with further reviews
Assuming wholesale cancellation of sports subscriptions are happening now just how many will reinstate their full packages when sport returns, but maybe of an even wider concern to subscription channels is where will the money come from to afford them from the populace. I can see a large uptake of freeview
I assume the broadcasters will litigate over broken contracts but the obscene flow of money into football is going to come to a juddering halt.
Many clubs , including famous ones, will not survive this going forward
If you stay indoors with no contact with the outside world (no deliveries even) after 14 days you could say that you would be virtually proof against getting it. Until you start contacting the outside world again...
"Actually, 260 was the estimate. Lower and upper bounds were 210 and 330."
Obviously you thought it came from the Imperial College models yourself!
It's actually a very good example of the dangers of forgetting our past. If it was taught at school instead of WW1 I suspect people would have been much more alive to the comparatively modest risks of Covid-19. I think it should be.
It should be more effective outside the big cities I'd have thought where physical interaction can be minimised further than it can say in London (No tube, more private vehicles).
IIUC Sars, Covid-19, HIV-Aids and Ebola all caused by species-jumping disease from eating wild animals. Will humans learn their lesson. No.
Of course. But there is no reason to think London will be ahead of the rest of the country. It will be roughly synchronous everywhere. Indeed, for some reasons laid out here, it might take longer in London if social distancing is being less well carried out in the capital.