Great news that the Tube is going to be returning to something like a full service.
Hopefully this utter madness of empty stations and packed like sardines trains is going to end now. Khan is absolutely useless and I'm glad the decisions been taken out of his hands!
Amazing what you can do when you can print money.
Indeed and to think so many wanted to give that ability away and join the Euro. Amazing how much we dodged a bullet by not doing that.
Another thing you can thank Gordon Brown for, aside from the global response to the banking crisis....
Shame the British public prefer style and stupidity over substance
Yeah right, Gordon Brown. Because its not as if the Tories hadn't putting pressure on the government long before Gordon Brown announced his five tests (which were always a matter of judgment) had been failed. And the public was opposed to membership too.
Gordon Brown followed the public and got one over on Blair, he didn't show leadership.
I cannot begin to tell you how much I would value now Gordon Brown over the morally repugnant, elitist, vacuous, tub of lard...that currently occupies the spot....
tyson likes the man who bankrupted the nation over a Tory, while being nasty about it . . .
. . . That is about as surprising as the sun rising in the East.
Blaming Brown for the banking crisis is as pathetic as blaming Boris for an infected bat that coughed on a pangolin in Wuhan.....
Boris is a repugnant and repulsive character, he's personally corrupted in a way that few humans are...and he's lazy, sloppy, arrogant and only interested in himself....but people like him, like yourself so well done...
I don't blame Brown for the recession. Economic cycles happen. There's always something that causes a recession every decade or so, we just don't generally know what that something will be.
I do blame Brown for hubristically believing he'd abolished boom and bust.
I do blame Brown for going into the recession having ran up an unnecessary maxed out deficit after a long period of economic grown leaving us massively exposed to the crash.
The deficit Brown was running before the recession came was inexcusable and historically awful for that stage of the economic cycle.
I blame Brown for what he did before the crash, not for the crash. Crashes happen that's why you're not so moronic as to claim you've abolished them and then run up an unnecessary deficit before one happens.
I thought Brown was a hopeless politician.....
But...now...I want someone with moral character running the country...I think May would be good too, because I need to have faith that the person at the top is a good person....I think Boris is an immorally repellant shit whose own family couldn't trust him....
Both Brown and May's fathers were Church Ministers, as indeed was Merkel's
I don't see how any theatres survive without government bail-outs, especially the historic ones. For those plebs seats, you would need to use about 1 in 5 seats to keep socially distanced (so I hear).
Have you seen these socially distancing plans for gyms?
I also presume there will be absolutely no use of the changing rooms, steam room, sauna, pool i.e. the best part of being a member of a decent gym.
We had subsidised gym membership at work. A couple of women used it for running. Go to the gym, get changed, come out of the gym, run a couple of miles up the road, run back, get showered and changed, leave the gym. Still, I'm sure they got their money's worth. Very soft towels, I expect.
I hope people don't take the Telegraph front page as an accurate prediction of the future..."Wiped out by June"....that's the virus, not humanity.
I'm more intrigued by the story that business travellers to the UK will be exempt from the 14 day quarantine.
This quarantine thing has just fallen apart. The government just have to admit they don't really want to do it. We are a sodding island, we could easily close the borders with specific exception for freight, but they aren't going to do it.
It's bizarre isn't it?
When the government announced the plan for the 14 day quarantine most people said 'Why haven't they done this sooner?'
The reason the government are reluctant is that 14 day quarantine is really problematic for business. See this thread:
I don't see how any theatres survive without government bail-outs, especially the historic ones. For those plebs seats, you would need to use about 1 in 5 seats to keep socially distanced (so I hear).
Have you seen these socially distancing plans for gyms?
As they say 10% of the UK public have had it and that R is only 0.4 in London. They are very different to what Witty said the other day and what the ONS data today would suggest.
I hope people don't take the Telegraph front page as an accurate prediction of the future..."Wiped out by June"....that's the virus, not humanity.
I'm more intrigued by the story that business travellers to the UK will be exempt from the 14 day quarantine.
This quarantine thing has just fallen apart. The government just have to admit they don't really want to do it. We are a sodding island, we could easily close the borders with specific exception for freight, but they aren't going to do it.
It's bizarre isn't it?
When the government announced the plan for the 14 day quarantine most people said 'Why haven't they done this sooner?'
The reason the government are reluctant is that 14 day quarantine is really problematic for business. See this thread:
I'm actually in favor of this, if they use it as a quite temporary transition measure.
I've lived in London for over 20 years. I love London. But even a trickle of overseas visitors could lead to a big second spike. Do it for June, just to be safe.
As they say 10% of the UK public have had it and that R is only 0.4 in London. They are very different to what Witty said the other day and what the ONS data today would suggest.
Thanks, just found it. It is quite interesting reading. Certain regions don't look like their curve were flattened that quickly by the lockdown e.g. the Midlands, where as London looks like it put a lid on it quickly.
Utter bilge. A woman who has lost her contacts, but has to write a piece. Comes up with something fluffy, crafted around barely a handful of comments from people who by their own admission aren't involved.
I hope this Cambridge work is correct, as they think mortality rate is ~0.5% and that 10% of the population have had it and ~20% in London.
If the mortality rate is about 0.5% overall, what is it for younger people with no health conditions?
Sorry I read the wrong column, medium is 0.6%.
5-14 - 6e-04% / 15-24 0.0032%....at those rates, we literally should be putting on all the usual summer festivals and saying all healthy under 25 can go to them all, then quarantine them all for 2 weeks after. More people must die of drug overdoses at them than will from CV.
As they say 10% of the UK public have had it and that R is only 0.4 in London. They are very different to what Witty said the other day and what the ONS data today would suggest.
Thanks, just found it. It is quite interesting reading. Certain regions don't look like their curve were flattened that quickly by the lockdown e.g. the Midlands, where as London looks like it put a lid on it quickly.
Very interesting. This is England only, so the figure is nearer 12% for England.
It also says England had 1.02M infections on 19th May, but 2.97M on 24th May. Does that sounds right?
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
As they say 10% of the UK public have had it and that R is only 0.4 in London. They are very different to what Witty said the other day and what the ONS data today would suggest.
Thanks, just found it. It is quite interesting reading. Certain regions don't look like their curve were flattened that quickly by the lockdown e.g. the Midlands, where as London looks like it put a lid on it quickly.
Very interesting. This is England only, so the figure is nearer 12% for England.
It also says England had 1.02M infections on 19th May, but 2.97M on 24th May. Does that sounds right?
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
Respectfully to UoM academics, it seems like total horseshit. They have fitted a model to limited data.
The interesting thing about the Cambridge / PHE is that it appears to being fed with all the latest data and is the one SAGE are using.
As they say 10% of the UK public have had it and that R is only 0.4 in London. They are very different to what Witty said the other day and what the ONS data today would suggest.
Thanks, just found it. It is quite interesting reading. Certain regions don't look like their curve were flattened that quickly by the lockdown e.g. the Midlands, where as London looks like it put a lid on it quickly.
Very interesting. This is England only, so the figure is nearer 12% for England.
It also says England had 1.02M infections on 19th May, but 2.97M on 24th May. Does that sounds right?
Where are you seeing that?
Cumulative infections tab. England. Then follow graph on daily median level. Unless I have misunderstood, which is possible...
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
I just can't believe it, unless most people are completely asymptomatic.
I don't know anyone in my age/social group who's had it. And most of my friends are based in London. The only two people I know who caught it were over 70 and caught it in hospital.
Similarly there have been very few reports of anybody on here catching it, or knowing someone who has caught it.
Or premier league footballers. Or people from "the only way is Essex". People the gossp mags would report having got it.
I just can't believe 25% of the population have supposedly had it. 4%, sounds more plausible.
So today's consensus is we have herd immunity, but almost nobody infected? I'm beginning to agree with @Anabobazina. We really know next to nothing about this virus. Although I appreciate some strides have been made in its treatment.
As they say 10% of the UK public have had it and that R is only 0.4 in London. They are very different to what Witty said the other day and what the ONS data today would suggest.
Thanks, just found it. It is quite interesting reading. Certain regions don't look like their curve were flattened that quickly by the lockdown e.g. the Midlands, where as London looks like it put a lid on it quickly.
Very interesting. This is England only, so the figure is nearer 12% for England.
It also says England had 1.02M infections on 19th May, but 2.97M on 24th May. Does that sounds right?
Where are you seeing that?
Cumulative infections tab. England. Then follow graph on daily median level. Unless I have misunderstood, which is possible...
I don't see those numbers, 19th May, 6.61M (cumulative infections), 24th May 6.64M .
A place of interest that gets very little mention - the Gulf States.
Infections/Deaths/Tests UAE - 21,084-208-1,561,000 Saudi - 46,869-283-514,000 Qatar-28,272-14-144,000 Kuwait-11,975-88-232,000 Oman-4,341-18-61,000
Lots of testing. Lots of positives. Very little deaths. UAE has done 1.5M tests, has population 9.5M. Nothing to disbelieve the death rates, so another quirky low death rate.
Funny how people pick the models that tell them what they wanted to hear.
I am still sceptical of even the Cambridge one tbh. The actual sampling data released by the ONS data showed very very small number of people with it when they tested at end of April, and Spain releasing their data saying 5% nationally / 11% Madrid (and they were hit as hard as the UK).
The UoM saying 29% of the population, that would make the fatality rate way lower than anybody serious is estimating.
As they say 10% of the UK public have had it and that R is only 0.4 in London. They are very different to what Witty said the other day and what the ONS data today would suggest.
Thanks, just found it. It is quite interesting reading. Certain regions don't look like their curve were flattened that quickly by the lockdown e.g. the Midlands, where as London looks like it put a lid on it quickly.
Very interesting. This is England only, so the figure is nearer 12% for England.
It also says England had 1.02M infections on 19th May, but 2.97M on 24th May. Does that sounds right?
Where are you seeing that?
Cumulative infections tab. England. Then follow graph on daily median level. Unless I have misunderstood, which is possible...
I don't see those numbers, 19th May, 6.61M (cumulative infections), 24th May 6.64M .
A place of interest that gets very little mention - the Gulf States.
Infections/Deaths/Tests UAE - 21,084-208-1,561,000 Saudi - 46,869-283-514,000 Qatar-28,272-14-144,000 Kuwait-11,975-88-232,000 Oman-4,341-18-61,000
Lots of testing. Lots of positives. Very little deaths. UAE has done 1.5M tests, has population 9.5M. Nothing to disbelieve the death rates, so another quirky low death rate.
So today's consensus is we have herd immunity, but almost nobody infected? I'm beginning to agree with @Anabobazina. We really know next to nothing about this virus. Although I appreciate some strides have been made in its treatment.
Au contraire, we are almost certain that it’s either highly infectious and relatively benign; or barely infectious and rather dangerous.
A third school of thought suggests it’s moderately infectious and somewhat dangerous - and who would argue with that, given the available evidence?
I think in another 6 weeks we will probably have a very good idea about the proportion of people who have had this, given that the government will be able to deploy 100,000s of these antibody tests a week.
If nothing else, if that forecast is correct, I can see why they couldn't cope with contact tracing any more. They had 290 people. Jeremy Hunt said that S Korea had a 1,000.
According to the forecast, 1st March to 10th March went from 13K to 117K. 1,000 tracers would have been irrelevant by then. At the peak on 23rd March over 500K a day were adding to the total.
If nothing else, if that forecast is correct, I can see why they couldn't cope with contact tracing any more. They had 290 people. Jeremy Hunt said that S Korea had a 1,000.
According to the forecast, 1st March to 10th March went from 13K to 117K. 1,000 tracers would have been irrelevant by then. At the peak on 23rd March over 500K a day were adding to the total.
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
"quite fit" = not fit at all and massively overweight.
A bit of pottering about on a bike doesn't not make one man have tour de france level of cardio.
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
No offence but I think I posted those precise figures about 6 weeks ago on here, although he's supposed to have lost about a stone recently to take the figure to 16 and a half.
If nothing else, if that forecast is correct, I can see why they couldn't cope with contact tracing any more. They had 290 people. Jeremy Hunt said that S Korea had a 1,000.
According to the forecast, 1st March to 10th March went from 13K to 117K. 1,000 tracers would have been irrelevant by then. At the peak on 23rd March over 500K a day were adding to the total.
Yes, that sounds about the right order of magnitude. There was zero chance of tracing it. There were just too many seeders who had come back from the continent.
The original pandemic plan (published somewhere on .gov) does talk about "the first 100 cases" where it proposes track and trace for the purpose of getting a handle on how transmission works, but not for any other purpose. There was never a plan for a South Korea style track trace and suppress, nor the capacity and technology to do it.
I think the only thing could stick is failing to lock down about a week earlier, in which case we'd have looked a lot more like Germany, regardless of testing. That wasn't in the official plan though - perhaps it just took too long to turn the government juggernaut round.
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the world’s largest contract manufacturer of silicon chips, is set to announce plans to build an advanced chip factory in Arizona as U.S. concerns grow about dependence on Asia for the critical technology.
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Wasn't the report that No.10 got Deliveroo'd 15 x Five Guys burgers when thrashing out the lockdown easing. Maybe they were all for Boris....
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
I just can't believe it, unless most people are completely asymptomatic.
I don't know anyone in my age/social group who's had it. And most of my friends are based in London. The only two people I know who caught it were over 70 and caught it in hospital.
Similarly there have been very few reports of anybody on here catching it, or knowing someone who has caught it.
Or premier league footballers. Or people from "the only way is Essex". People the gossp mags would report having got it.
I just can't believe 25% of the population have supposedly had it. 4%, sounds more plausible.
I know half a dozen people who appear to have had it, judging by the symptoms, age range 25-55. In view of our baffling testing strategy, nobody really knows. I agree 25% sounds unlikely, unless the vast majority have virtually no symptoms.
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
Tomorrow’s Daily Mirror saying 19m on front page
The Daily Mirror has said a lot on its front page over the years, very little of it stands up to scrutiny. Only one reply to this edition's claim: bollocks!
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Boris is big and broad but shorter than Trump or Cameron, however tall they are.
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
Tomorrow’s Daily Mirror saying 19m on front page
The Daily Mirror has said a lot on its front page over the years, very little of it stands up to scrutiny. Only one reply to this edition's claim: bollocks!
The Mirror is quoting the Manchester study discussed earlier.
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Boris is big and broad but shorter than Trump or Cameron, however tall they are.
Cameron is 6ft 1 apparently. Trump, his height changes dependent on his weight, supposedly 6ft 3 (cough cough bullshit).
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Boris is big and broad but shorter than Trump or Cameron, however tall they are.
Cameron is 6ft 1 apparently. Trump, his height changes dependent on his weight, supposedly 6ft 3 (cough cough bullshit).
If you look at photos of Johnson and Cameron standing next to each other, Cameron appears to be only about 2 inches taller than Johnson.
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Boris is big and broad but shorter than Trump or Cameron, however tall they are.
Cameron is 6ft 1 apparently. Trump, his height changes dependent on his weight, supposedly 6ft 3 (cough cough bullshit).
If you look at photos of Johnson and Cameron standing next to each other, Cameron appears to be only about 2 inches taller than Johnson.
The La Roche antibody test has - a sensitivity of 100%, i.e., if you've had COVID, it will say you have - a specificity of 99.8%, i.e. if you've haven't had COVID, there's a 0.2% chance the test will say you have.
Question: what difference in the predictive value of the test (i.e. if you've tested positive, what is the chance you have in fact had COVID) is there if only 4% of the population have been exposed, versus if 12% have?
Answer: If 4%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 400 will have had COVID and will test positive - 9.600 will not have had COVID and of those, 19 will test positive. So, 400/419 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 95.4% accurate
If 12%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 1200 will have had COVID and will test positive - 8800 will not have had COVID and of those, 17 will test positive. So, 1200/1217 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 98.6% accurate
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Boris is big and broad but shorter than Trump or Cameron, however tall they are.
Cameron is 6ft 1 apparently. Trump, his height changes dependent on his weight, supposedly 6ft 3 (cough cough bullshit).
If you look at photos of Johnson and Cameron standing next to each other, Cameron appears to be only about 2 inches taller than Johnson.
But if you look at pretty much all photos of Cameron with Obama, they are pretty much bang on the same height and Obama is also listed at 6ft 1.
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
I just can't believe it, unless most people are completely asymptomatic.
I don't know anyone in my age/social group who's had it. And most of my friends are based in London. The only two people I know who caught it were over 70 and caught it in hospital.
Similarly there have been very few reports of anybody on here catching it, or knowing someone who has caught it.
Or premier league footballers. Or people from "the only way is Essex". People the gossp mags would report having got it.
I just can't believe 25% of the population have supposedly had it. 4%, sounds more plausible.
I know half a dozen people who are confirmed cases, or have someone in their family who had it and think they had it too
The La Roche antibody test has - a sensitivity of 100%, i.e., if you've had COVID, it will say you have - a specificity of 99.8%, i.e. if you've haven't had COVID, there's a 0.2% chance the test will say you have.
Question: what difference in the predictive value of the test (i.e. if you've tested positive, what is the chance you have in fact had COVID) is there if only 4% of the population have been exposed, versus if 12% have?
Answer: If 4%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 400 will have had COVID and will test positive - 9.600 will not have had COVID and of those, 19 will test positive. So, 400/419 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 95.4% accurate
If 12%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 1200 will have had COVID and will test positive - 8800 will not have had COVID and of those, 17 will test positive. So, 1200/1217 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 98.6% accurate
Question...do we know if these false positives are repeatable i.e. if you run the a test twice on somebody, will they always return positive (even if they were actually negative)? Is the false positive, due to some strange biology in the person, or is it down to a processing error in the test procedure / manufacturing defect?
The La Roche antibody test has - a sensitivity of 100%, i.e., if you've had COVID, it will say you have - a specificity of 99.8%, i.e. if you've haven't had COVID, there's a 0.2% chance the test will say you have.
Question: what difference in the predictive value of the test (i.e. if you've tested positive, what is the chance you have in fact had COVID) is there if only 4% of the population have been exposed, versus if 12% have?
Answer: If 4%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 400 will have had COVID and will test positive - 9.600 will not have had COVID and of those, 19 will test positive. So, 400/419 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 95.4% accurate
If 12%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 1200 will have had COVID and will test positive - 8800 will not have had COVID and of those, 17 will test positive. So, 1200/1217 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 98.6% accurate
Question...do we know if these false positives are repeatable i.e. if you run the a test twice on somebody, will they always return positive (even if they were actually negative)? Is the false positive, due to some strange biology in the person, or is it down to a processing error in the test procedure / manufacturing defect?
Good question. I would imagine it will always be a bit of both. Certainly, some of it will be biological (and not so strange) The effectiveness of medication varies considerably across populations. We in the West rarely notice it, because medications have been developed by our corporations and optimized for our populations.
The La Roche antibody test has - a sensitivity of 100%, i.e., if you've had COVID, it will say you have - a specificity of 99.8%, i.e. if you've haven't had COVID, there's a 0.2% chance the test will say you have.
Question: what difference in the predictive value of the test (i.e. if you've tested positive, what is the chance you have in fact had COVID) is there if only 4% of the population have been exposed, versus if 12% have?
Answer: If 4%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 400 will have had COVID and will test positive - 9.600 will not have had COVID and of those, 19 will test positive. So, 400/419 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 95.4% accurate
If 12%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 1200 will have had COVID and will test positive - 8800 will not have had COVID and of those, 17 will test positive. So, 1200/1217 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 98.6% accurate
Question...do we know if these false positives are repeatable i.e. if you run the a test twice on somebody, will they always return positive (even if they were actually negative)? Is the false positive, due to some strange biology in the person, or is it down to a processing error in the test procedure / manufacturing defect?
Good question. I would imagine it will always be a bit of both. Certainly, some of it will be biological (and not so strange) The effectiveness of medication varies considerably across populations. We in the West rarely notice it, because medications have been developed by our corporations and optimized for our populations.
PS Some of the false positives will almost certainly be cross reactivity to antibodies from similar but different infections, perhaps even the four strains of common cold that are caused by human coronaviruses.
PS Some of the false positives will almost certainly be cross reactivity to antibodies from similar but different infections, perhaps even the four strains of common cold that are caused by human coronaviruses.
So I guess the upshot of that is that when you see someone quote a specificity number for their test, that could be wildly wrong depending what similar strains there are in the population you're testing?
The La Roche antibody test has - a sensitivity of 100%, i.e., if you've had COVID, it will say you have - a specificity of 99.8%, i.e. if you've haven't had COVID, there's a 0.2% chance the test will say you have.
Question: what difference in the predictive value of the test (i.e. if you've tested positive, what is the chance you have in fact had COVID) is there if only 4% of the population have been exposed, versus if 12% have?
Answer: If 4%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 400 will have had COVID and will test positive - 9.600 will not have had COVID and of those, 19 will test positive. So, 400/419 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 95.4% accurate
If 12%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 1200 will have had COVID and will test positive - 8800 will not have had COVID and of those, 17 will test positive. So, 1200/1217 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 98.6% accurate
Question...do we know if these false positives are repeatable i.e. if you run the a test twice on somebody, will they always return positive (even if they were actually negative)? Is the false positive, due to some strange biology in the person, or is it down to a processing error in the test procedure / manufacturing defect?
Good question. I would imagine it will always be a bit of both. Certainly, some of it will be biological (and not so strange) The effectiveness of medication varies considerably across populations. We in the West rarely notice it, because medications have been developed by our corporations and optimized for our populations.
PS Some of the false positives will almost certainly be cross reactivity to antibodies from similar but different infections, perhaps even the four strains of common cold that are caused by human coronaviruses.
I read that people who resistance to corona virus strains of the cold were less likely to catch cv-19, which is a clear positive and a possible way to increase resistance in the general population
"London 'virus-free in two weels': Just 24 new cases a day are recorded in the capital and it could be eradicated there by June raising hopes lockdown could be eased
London has recorded just 24 new daily coronavirus cases and has the lowest 'reproduction' rate in England The city's R rate of 0.4 means the outbreak is currently shrinking quickly with cases halving every 3.5 days At that rate of decrease the capital could expect to record no new daily cases within two weeks, data suggests"
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Boris is big and broad but shorter than Trump or Cameron, however tall they are.
Cameron is 6ft 1 apparently. Trump, his height changes dependent on his weight, supposedly 6ft 3 (cough cough bullshit).
If you look at photos of Johnson and Cameron standing next to each other, Cameron appears to be only about 2 inches taller than Johnson.
But if you look at pretty much all photos of Cameron with Obama, they are pretty much bang on the same height and Obama is also listed at 6ft 1.
One of life's great mysteries, aka the Cuban heel mystery perhaps?
The La Roche antibody test has - a sensitivity of 100%, i.e., if you've had COVID, it will say you have - a specificity of 99.8%, i.e. if you've haven't had COVID, there's a 0.2% chance the test will say you have.
Question: what difference in the predictive value of the test (i.e. if you've tested positive, what is the chance you have in fact had COVID) is there if only 4% of the population have been exposed, versus if 12% have?
Answer: If 4%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 400 will have had COVID and will test positive - 9.600 will not have had COVID and of those, 19 will test positive. So, 400/419 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 95.4% accurate
If 12%, in a cohort of 10,000: - 1200 will have had COVID and will test positive - 8800 will not have had COVID and of those, 17 will test positive. So, 1200/1217 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 98.6% accurate
Question...do we know if these false positives are repeatable i.e. if you run the a test twice on somebody, will they always return positive (even if they were actually negative)? Is the false positive, due to some strange biology in the person, or is it down to a processing error in the test procedure / manufacturing defect?
Good question. I would imagine it will always be a bit of both. Certainly, some of it will be biological (and not so strange) The effectiveness of medication varies considerably across populations. We in the West rarely notice it, because medications have been developed by our corporations and optimized for our populations.
PS Some of the false positives will almost certainly be cross reactivity to antibodies from similar but different infections, perhaps even the four strains of common cold that are caused by human coronaviruses.
Cross contamination of samples is also a possibility - though in validation work I’d assume they’d have a regime to recheck and minimise the chances.
"London 'virus-free in two weels': Just 24 new cases a day are recorded in the capital and it could be eradicated there by June raising hopes lockdown could be eased
London has recorded just 24 new daily coronavirus cases and has the lowest 'reproduction' rate in England The city's R rate of 0.4 means the outbreak is currently shrinking quickly with cases halving every 3.5 days At that rate of decrease the capital could expect to record no new daily cases within two weeks, data suggests"
"London 'virus-free in two weels': Just 24 new cases a day are recorded in the capital and it could be eradicated there by June raising hopes lockdown could be eased
London has recorded just 24 new daily coronavirus cases and has the lowest 'reproduction' rate in England The city's R rate of 0.4 means the outbreak is currently shrinking quickly with cases halving every 3.5 days At that rate of decrease the capital could expect to record no new daily cases within two weeks, data suggests"
"London 'virus-free in two weels': Just 24 new cases a day are recorded in the capital and it could be eradicated there by June raising hopes lockdown could be eased
London has recorded just 24 new daily coronavirus cases and has the lowest 'reproduction' rate in England The city's R rate of 0.4 means the outbreak is currently shrinking quickly with cases halving every 3.5 days At that rate of decrease the capital could expect to record no new daily cases within two weeks, data suggests"
Seems a bit odd, given that London is hardly locked away more than anywhere else. Yes, the virus has moved into care homes but London has plenty of those.
An explanation would be relatively widespread infection rates - but latest research is returning ‘had the virus’ rates that are still very low. (Edit/ just seen the Manchester study. Scale up their rate for worse hit London and you have a credible hypothesis)
Great news that the Tube is going to be returning to something like a full service.
Hopefully this utter madness of empty stations and packed like sardines trains is going to end now. Khan is absolutely useless and I'm glad the decisions been taken out of his hands!
Amazing what you can do when you can print money.
What is the point of Khan now TFL has effectively been nationalised ?
Well he's in charge of the Met police, housing, and fire services for starters.
Pretty important things to be in charge of, or do you think the Mayor of London only runs TfL?
It is a pretty big job but how is knife crime in London under Khan
Still in the private sector.
The MET are a private sector company ?
Er, no. But the gangs are.
I think you needed a few more syllables for that one liner which I thought was rather witty. I've now starting to look out for your posts because I think you show the odd emergence of some comic talent....
I'm supposed to be a serious pundit drawing on my wealth of experience and PPE wonkage to provide cutting edge insight.
When Boris got ill, and people said he was quite fit as he went jogging and cycling, I was amazed...I don't know anyone who looks less fit, I think I said exactly that.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
5ft 9! Wow. I really didn't realise that. I always thought he was a big bloke. That is dangerously obese...if he does jog and cycle then, even allowing for any genetic component, and his Dad seems quite wiry, he must have an awful diet. And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
Boris is big and broad but shorter than Trump or Cameron, however tall they are.
Cameron is 6ft 1 apparently. Trump, his height changes dependent on his weight, supposedly 6ft 3 (cough cough bullshit).
If you look at photos of Johnson and Cameron standing next to each other, Cameron appears to be only about 2 inches taller than Johnson.
In my photo standing next to him I am clearly taller and I am six foot.
The word on his fitness appears to be that his jogging and cycling regime is a thing of the past. He may have fallen to the syndrome of someone who stops after a lifetime of relative activity.
It is based on analysis of reported data and not any new testing data.
They look at variations between local authority areas and find a negative correlation between reported infection rate and current transmission rate, and by extrapolating their data argue that this implies much more widespread asymptomatic infection.
As I said earlier, it would be a credible explanation for the apparent falling away of new infections in London, and it is hard to see any other.
Important to note however that the few antibody testing studies so far published aren’t finding widespread infection rates,
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
It is based on analysis of reported data and not any new testing data.
They look at variations between local authority areas and find a negative correlation between reported infection rate and current transmission rate, and by extrapolating their data argue that this implies much more widespread asymptomatic infection.
As I said earlier, it would be a credible explanation for the apparent falling away of new infections in London, and it is hard to see any other.
Important to note however that the few antibody testing studies so far published aren’t finding widespread infection rates,
I tried to do something similar, but concluded it was too problematic to look for a (negative) correlation between infections and current transmission rate, because you'd expect a positive correlation between infections and the underlying transmission rate (without any effect of immunity and before the lockdown took effect). For example you'd expect both to be higher in urban areas than rural. And you do get a positive correlation within London.
Is it me, or are others wondering how, months into this pandemic, we still have only very broad error-barred wobbly numbers on R, levels of asymptomatic infection, transmission rates, infection rates.... We don't have a clue to within tens of millions how many have had this thing in a population of 67m.
It is based on analysis of reported data and not any new testing data.
They look at variations between local authority areas and find a negative correlation between reported infection rate and current transmission rate, and by extrapolating their data argue that this implies much more widespread asymptomatic infection.
As I said earlier, it would be a credible explanation for the apparent falling away of new infections in London, and it is hard to see any other.
It is difficult to account for the big decline in London otherwise, though.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
"London 'virus-free in two weels': Just 24 new cases a day are recorded in the capital and it could be eradicated there by June raising hopes lockdown could be eased
London has recorded just 24 new daily coronavirus cases and has the lowest 'reproduction' rate in England The city's R rate of 0.4 means the outbreak is currently shrinking quickly with cases halving every 3.5 days At that rate of decrease the capital could expect to record no new daily cases within two weeks, data suggests"
It is based on analysis of reported data and not any new testing data.
They look at variations between local authority areas and find a negative correlation between reported infection rate and current transmission rate, and by extrapolating their data argue that this implies much more widespread asymptomatic infection.
As I said earlier, it would be a credible explanation for the apparent falling away of new infections in London, and it is hard to see any other.
Important to note however that the few antibody testing studies so far published aren’t finding widespread infection rates,
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
If all this sounds too good to be true - it's because it almost certainly is.
It is based on analysis of reported data and not any new testing data.
They look at variations between local authority areas and find a negative correlation between reported infection rate and current transmission rate, and by extrapolating their data argue that this implies much more widespread asymptomatic infection.
As I said earlier, it would be a credible explanation for the apparent falling away of new infections in London, and it is hard to see any other.
It is difficult to account for the big decline in London otherwise, though.
Errrr... Other than the lockdown and people being more careful?
Look at Madrid. That was a disaster zone. And 11% of people had CV-19.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
CNN: Scientists in Belgium discover llama antibodies could be key to treatment.
Great, so now we have to be infected by llamas first...
Apparently llama antibodies have some special properties that make them particularly good at binding to the virus. The Belgian scientists are now testing them on hamsters. Meanwhile CNN’s report features a short clip with a British llama farmer who claims to be receiving calls from people wanting some llama blood to drink.
It is based on analysis of reported data and not any new testing data.
They look at variations between local authority areas and find a negative correlation between reported infection rate and current transmission rate, and by extrapolating their data argue that this implies much more widespread asymptomatic infection.
As I said earlier, it would be a credible explanation for the apparent falling away of new infections in London, and it is hard to see any other.
It is difficult to account for the big decline in London otherwise, though.
Errrr... Other than the lockdown and people being more careful?
Look at Madrid. That was a disaster zone. And 11% of people had CV-19.
There isn’t any evidence that people are being more careful in London - all the anecdotal evidence (from the media as well as my own) suggests the opposite - cf the footage from London parks last weekend. Meanwhile where I am out on the sticks everyone is mostly taking it very seriously.
Is it me, or are others wondering how, months into this pandemic, we still have only very broad error-barred wobbly numbers on R, levels of asymptomatic infection, transmission rates, infection rates.... We don't have a clue to within tens of millions how many have had this thing in a population of 67m.
Pull your finger out, Science Guy!
Yes, we really need some population studies of antibody prevalence using a reliable test like the Roche one to know.
Otherwise we can only roughly estimate R, and only in retrospect.
Incidentally, Fox jr got a letter from NHS England yesterday, calling him for random virus swab testing. He has not been in physical contact with anyone bar me or Mrs Foxy in a month, and clinically completely well. I would be astonished if he tested positive. Not sure this the best use of swab testing capacity myself, though it must increase the tractor stats. Nonetheless, I have encouraged him to participate. I like to help science.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
The paper predicts there would have been 120 000 deaths with the original R of 2.8.
The paper does not address the socio-economic cost effectiveness of the measures, purely the transmission data.
I assume if the 19m suggestion were remotely correct, it would imply that the lockdown was almost completely pointless, either in need or effectiveness.
I don't think that a correct interpretation.
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
But it would also put the death rate at a level which would suggest the negative consequences of the lockdown (in the way it was implemented) outweighing the positives.
I'm more convinced than ever that the death toll from the effects of the lockdown - an accumulation of greatly increased poverty and economic distress, the huge numbers of diagnostic screenings, treatments and operations delayed and cancelled, and the numbers of acutely ill patients terrified into avoiding health services - will outweigh that from the disease.
In the general population outside of elderly care homes, the difference could easily be an order of magnitude.
EDIT: of course, because the possible death toll from the virus if we'd used the Swedish approach, or even no lockdown at all, is heavily disputed - and also because deaths attributable to lockdown will take many years to play out, and the attribution will, in many cases, also be disputed - we're probably never going to get a proper answer to the question of whether this particular lockdown was excessive or not.
Is it me, or are others wondering how, months into this pandemic, we still have only very broad error-barred wobbly numbers on R, levels of asymptomatic infection, transmission rates, infection rates.... We don't have a clue to within tens of millions how many have had this thing in a population of 67m.
Pull your finger out, Science Guy!
Yes, we really need some population studies of antibody prevalence using a reliable test like the Roche one to know.
Otherwise we can only roughly estimate R, and only in retrospect.
Incidentally, Fox jr got a letter from NHS England yesterday, calling him for random virus swab testing. He has not been in physical contact with anyone bar me or Mrs Foxy in a month, and clinically completely well. I would be astonished if he tested positive. Not sure this the best use of swab testing capacity myself, though it must increase the tractor stats. Nonetheless, I have encouraged him to participate. I like to help science.
I have been random tested as part of that 11000 survey from the ONS. Every week there is a bit of curtain twitching as the nurse comes around and conducts a test on my driveway ! All the neighbours avoid me a lot more than 2 metres now!
Comments
Insert joke here...
https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/tackling-covid-19/nowcasting-and-forecasting-of-covid-19/
Unbelievably fucking dumb.
https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/tackling-covid-19/nowcasting-and-forecasting-of-covid-19/
I've lived in London for over 20 years. I love London. But even a trickle of overseas visitors could lead to a big second spike. Do it for June, just to be safe.
5-14 - 6e-04% / 15-24 0.0032%....at those rates, we literally should be putting on all the usual summer festivals and saying all healthy under 25 can go to them all, then quarantine them all for 2 weeks after. More people must die of drug overdoses at them than will from CV.
It also says England had 1.02M infections on 19th May, but 2.97M on 24th May. Does that sounds right?
A separate study from a team at the University of Manchester suggests 17.3 million in Britain may have already been infected with coronavirus, putting the county well on the way to herd immunity.
The interesting thing about the Cambridge / PHE is that it appears to being fed with all the latest data and is the one SAGE are using.
I don't know anyone in my age/social group who's had it. And most of my friends are based in London. The only two people I know who caught it were over 70 and caught it in hospital.
Similarly there have been very few reports of anybody on here catching it, or knowing someone who has caught it.
Or premier league footballers. Or people from "the only way is Essex". People the gossp mags would report having got it.
I just can't believe 25% of the population have supposedly had it. 4%, sounds more plausible.
I'm beginning to agree with @Anabobazina. We really know next to nothing about this virus.
Although I appreciate some strides have been made in its treatment.
Infections/Deaths/Tests
UAE - 21,084-208-1,561,000
Saudi - 46,869-283-514,000
Qatar-28,272-14-144,000
Kuwait-11,975-88-232,000
Oman-4,341-18-61,000
Lots of testing. Lots of positives. Very little deaths. UAE has done 1.5M tests, has population 9.5M. Nothing to disbelieve the death rates, so another quirky low death rate.
The UoM saying 29% of the population, that would make the fatality rate way lower than anybody serious is estimating.
A third school of thought suggests it’s moderately infectious and somewhat dangerous - and who would argue with that, given the available evidence?
As is right and proper.
Swings and roundabouts.
According to the forecast, 1st March to 10th March went from 13K to 117K. 1,000 tracers would have been irrelevant by then. At the peak on 23rd March over 500K a day were adding to the total.
The Times front page has him 5ft 9 and 17 1/2 stone! That's obese!
A bit of pottering about on a bike doesn't not make one man have tour de france level of cardio.
The original pandemic plan (published somewhere on .gov) does talk about "the first 100 cases" where it proposes track and trace for the purpose of getting a handle on how transmission works, but not for any other purpose. There was never a plan for a South Korea style track trace and suppress, nor the capacity and technology to do it.
I think the only thing could stick is failing to lock down about a week earlier, in which case we'd have looked a lot more like Germany, regardless of testing. That wasn't in the official plan though - perhaps it just took too long to turn the government juggernaut round.
And I mean 12 pack of Monster Munch and 2 litre of Coke daily or whatever the Etonian equivalent is, bad.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/taiwan-company-to-build-advanced-semiconductor-factory-in-arizona-11589481659
At least with Italy you have the assumption that they might not be getting it wrong on purpose.
- a sensitivity of 100%, i.e., if you've had COVID, it will say you have
- a specificity of 99.8%, i.e. if you've haven't had COVID, there's a 0.2% chance the test will say you have.
Question: what difference in the predictive value of the test (i.e. if you've tested positive, what is the chance you have in fact had COVID) is there if only 4% of the population have been exposed, versus if 12% have?
Answer:
If 4%, in a cohort of 10,000:
- 400 will have had COVID and will test positive
- 9.600 will not have had COVID and of those, 19 will test positive.
So, 400/419 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 95.4% accurate
If 12%, in a cohort of 10,000:
- 1200 will have had COVID and will test positive
- 8800 will not have had COVID and of those, 17 will test positive.
So, 1200/1217 positive tests are accurate, i.e. 98.6% accurate
London has recorded just 24 new daily coronavirus cases and has the lowest 'reproduction' rate in England
The city's R rate of 0.4 means the outbreak is currently shrinking quickly with cases halving every 3.5 days
At that rate of decrease the capital could expect to record no new daily cases within two weeks, data suggests"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8321677/London-records-just-24-new-covid-19-cases-day-raising-hopes-lockdown-eased.html
“No rush” for large scale population testing ?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/14/covid-19-antibody-test-unlikely-to-be-widely-aviable-any-time-soon
Is that likely to drift back up over 1, as we relax lockdown ?
An explanation would be relatively widespread infection rates - but latest research is returning ‘had the virus’ rates that are still very low. (Edit/ just seen the Manchester study. Scale up their rate for worse hit London and you have a credible hypothesis)
The word on his fitness appears to be that his jogging and cycling regime is a thing of the past. He may have fallen to the syndrome of someone who stops after a lifetime of relative activity.
It is based on analysis of reported data and not any new testing data.
They look at variations between local authority areas and find a negative correlation between reported infection rate and current transmission rate, and by extrapolating their data argue that this implies much more widespread asymptomatic infection.
As I said earlier, it would be a credible explanation for the apparent falling away of new infections in London, and it is hard to see any other.
Important to note however that the few antibody testing studies so far published aren’t finding widespread infection rates,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528
Pull your finger out, Science Guy!
The paper states that by their calculations the lockdown measures have reduced the R from 2.8 on March 23rd to 0.8 today.
At the former figure a much higher percentage of infected population is required for herd immunity.
Look at Madrid. That was a disaster zone. And 11% of people had CV-19.
Otherwise we can only roughly estimate R, and only in retrospect.
Incidentally, Fox jr got a letter from NHS England yesterday, calling him for random virus swab testing. He has not been in physical contact with anyone bar me or Mrs Foxy in a month, and clinically completely well. I would be astonished if he tested positive. Not sure this the best use of swab testing capacity myself, though it must increase the tractor stats. Nonetheless, I have encouraged him to participate. I like to help science.
The paper does not address the socio-economic cost effectiveness of the measures, purely the transmission data.
In the general population outside of elderly care homes, the difference could easily be an order of magnitude.
EDIT: of course, because the possible death toll from the virus if we'd used the Swedish approach, or even no lockdown at all, is heavily disputed - and also because deaths attributable to lockdown will take many years to play out, and the attribution will, in many cases, also be disputed - we're probably never going to get a proper answer to the question of whether this particular lockdown was excessive or not.
They are good guard animals (stick one llama in with a field of sheep), and and can also carry things about. Llama trekking is quite popular.
I believe Llama excrement can be used as fuel.