I've decided that the key metric is a moving average of the week-over-week change.
Why?
Because there are not uniform numbers of tests done on each day. The weekends tend to have fewer tests (which is reflected in the Sunday and Monday numbers). Plus, there's a ton of variability on a day-to-day basis.
For Italy as a whole, this shows new cases are currently tracking at down 20% week-over-week.
For Lombardy, which was the epicenter of the outbreak and which has tended to lead Italy by four or five days, the number is 28% down.
We can probably expect that the number of active cases will start to decline by next Sunday.
However, although the worst is clearly now behind in Italy (especially as the numbers we're seeing now are for people infected 10-14 days ago), predicting when lockdowns will be eased is a harder call. I would think that realistically four more weeks of these drops (combined with the fact that reported numbers are effectively two weeks in arrears) will probably be the point at which we start to see some easing.
On a positive note notice how we've stopped talking about what's in the shops.
The supermarkets seem to have everything available if sometimes not in a full range or in the same quantities.
I'm impressed with their performance.
They're getting back on balance after having to adjust to all the extra demand - not just the hoarding wave, but all the extra food people need to cover the cessation of supply from school and work canteens, and virtually the entire restaurant trade.
So yes, there are still hiccups and certain goods are in intermittently short supply - and I would also keep an eye on the weather, because having to wait in a queue outside of a supermarket for half-an-hour to be let in, as I did yesterday, is going to become a much more serious problem if and when we have to endure a prolonged period of rain. But things are a lot better than they were; even the bog roll aisle was more or less full in Tesco yesterday.
The main potential cloud on the horizon now is further disruption if a lot of British farmers find themselves short of labour to bring in the fruit and veg harvest.
In Los Angeles, the stores are full, except for toilet paper.
What IS IT with people and loo roll? We're only two in this house, but it takes a month to get through a packet of nine.
And we always have 9 in the cupboard, at least....
I've decided that the key metric is a moving average of the week-over-week change.
Why?
Because there are not uniform numbers of tests done on each day. The weekends tend to have fewer tests (which is reflected in the Sunday and Monday numbers). Plus, there's a ton of variability on a day-to-day basis.
For Italy as a whole, this shows new cases are currently tracking at down 20% week-over-week.
For Lombardy, which was the epicenter of the outbreak and which has tended to lead Italy by four or five days, the number is 28% down.
We can probably expect that the number of active cases will start to decline by next Sunday.
However, although the worst is clearly now behind in Italy (especially as the numbers we're seeing now are for people infected 10-14 days ago), predicting when lockdowns will be eased is a harder call. I would think that realistically four more weeks of these drops (combined with the fact that reported numbers are effectively two weeks in arrears) will probably be the point at which we start to see some easing.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
A depressing thought, especially as your assessment before 10pm on December 12th that Johnson was due a circa 80 seat majority has been duly noted.
I don't think there's an incumbency bonus in the US when it's not the incumbent President running. Woodrow Wilson stood aside, having won two terms, and Cox ran and lost for the Dems in 1920.
Incumbency is very strong for first-term presidents who won from opposition. Only exception in 20thC-21stC being Carter, who was stoppable.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
There is the same number of new infections today as there were 9 days ago.I really thought that 27 days into the lockdown the numbers would be much lower. Maybe this virus just runs its course and lockdowns make no difference
A higher rate in Lombardy at the start now matched by a lower rate throughout Italy?
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
Oxfordsimon is going to try put a negative spin on whoever Starmer appoints. It's totally predictable and therefore of very limited value.
Always nice to being on the receiving end of an ad hominem attack. But my point still stands - whether or not you agree with it (or anything else I say) - Rayner should have been in line for a more substantial role given the mandate she received. Party Chair is something that Harriet Harman had as Deputy Leader - and she also had government/shadow cabinet roles at the same time.
This looks like a snub to me.
The alternative might be that Starmer believes the role of Party Chair to be crucial in overhauling the party machinery and policy offering without causing splits. Achieving that will be fundamental to the thing he has identified as his main priority - winning the next election. So maybe he wants to leave her, as the person best places to do it, free to concentrate on that.
Not saying that *is* the case, just that it’s another interpretation that fits the facts we have.
I can see what you are saying but it just feels like somewhat of a disappointing outcome for her I have never rated her but she did win and could have expected a more substantial job. There is work to be done in undoing the Momentum takeover of party structures but I don't think she is the heavyweight necessary to achieve that.
Till we've got a vaccine, unless it's been pretty much completely stamped out various aspects of life ain't returning to how they were even in the absence of any sort of official control. I sure as hell am not going to the cinema till I've either got through it , am vaccinated or it's disappeared.
Me and my pub mates have been discussing this for weeks, latterly on Zoom.
An important question is how any exit needs to satisfy two totally disparate groups. On the one hand, those who want to have the freedom to get out of it and, on the other, those who want the safety of maintaining it. I can’t see how there can be a never ending lockdown, yet I also can’t see how there could also be a complete abandonment of it.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
I would say he is no more than 30-40% chance. The rally round effect has already been seen and he is still 2-5 points behind Biden. On top of that, Biden is stronger among blue collar whites than Clinton, so the electoral college advantage will be smaller for Trump. Plus people will be very angry in six months time and people tend to blame the President regardless of fault. And this time he is clearly at fault.
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
Oxfordsimon is going to try put a negative spin on whoever Starmer appoints. It's totally predictable and therefore of very limited value.
Always nice to being on the receiving end of an ad hominem attack.
But my point still stands - whether or not you agree with it (or anything else I say) - Rayner should have been in line for a more substantial role given the mandate she received. Party Chair is something that Harriet Harman had as Deputy Leader - and she also had government/shadow cabinet roles at the same time.
This looks like a snub to me.
Rayner was stupid to run for a non-job and has no-one to blame but herself for taking herself out of the game.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
A depressing thought, especially as your assessment before 10pm on December 12th that Johnson was due a circa 80 seat majority has been duly noted.
"I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump"
I agree, but will "increasing" chances be enough? He won last time by the skin of his teeth thanks to Rust Belt.
Re fake news and 5G, interesting to remember that "Dr" Naomi Wolf was an adviser to Bill Clinton (and later to Al Gore). Anyone care to comment on Belfast's "3G clear air"?
That book was just a rewriting for public consumption of her recent PhD thesis. Alarmingly, from Oxford! And they didn't pick up that it was so deeply erroneous presumably because even though it was really about social and legal history, she did it with their English literature deparment IIRC so it didn't receive scrutiny from anyone with actual knowledge of the subject under discussion. She's still got that PhD though... Narks me right off that she plonks the "Dr" in front of her name on twitter to enhance her authority even when spouting nonsense about 5G. Obviously she wasn't a science adviser but it's interesting she was an adviser to Bill Clinton and Al Gore bearing in mind their reputation for leaning towards technocratic/scientific input.
@rcs1000 - a week-on-week reduction of only 20% doesn't sound very promising. Let's hope it speeds up. Otherwise we might see 2 weeks of freedom causing enough new cases for 2 months of another lockdown.
And it's hard to think of how this can be eased gradually, especially if the aim is to avoid too much bureaucracy around who is allowed out for what. I hope the government brainstorming meetings have come up with a few ideas.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
I would say he is no more than 30-40% chance. The rally round effect has already been seen and he is still 2-5 points behind Biden. On top of that, Biden is stronger among blue collar whites than Clinton, so the electoral college advantage will be smaller for Trump. Plus people will be very angry in six months time and people tend to blame the President regardless of fault. And this time he is clearly at fault.
It is always important and illumi acting to dip into the average Joe Trump supporter with a Twitter account-verse.
They are loving his press conferences, they are "powerful" they are "unvarnished". They have memory holed his early claims that there wouldn't be any problem.
BTW, work on my bug hotel was cut short today when I ran out of nails. I think it looks nice and rustic. Wor Lass is a bit more sceptical.
In other news, one of our neighbours has secured a delivery slot from Morrisons and kindly asked if we wanted to add anything to the order.
I did my first online shop ever. Booked it with Morrisons two weeks ago. Supposed to arrive between 2 and 3pm today. Just rang now , they said the driver has delivered to wrong address. Said they had 5 complaints already from York today, where the same had happened. They will speak with the driver tomorrow. Maybe someone is getting free food ?
Me and my pub mates have been discussing this for weeks, latterly on Zoom.
He is saying nothing more than I noted on here last week. They instantly create tension in society to say nothing of fake certificates.
Is it that hard to produce a system where the certificate contains an ID number/barcode that can be scanned and verified on a database? You wouldn't get away with a fake driving license if it was verified against the DVLA's records.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
I would say he is no more than 30-40% chance. The rally round effect has already been seen and he is still 2-5 points behind Biden. On top of that, Biden is stronger among blue collar whites than Clinton, so the electoral college advantage will be smaller for Trump. Plus people will be very angry in six months time and people tend to blame the President regardless of fault. And this time he is clearly at fault.
It is always important and illumi acting to dip into the average Joe Trump supporter with a Twitter account-verse.
They are loving his press conferences, they are "powerful" they are "unvarnished". They have memory holed his early claims that there wouldn't be any problem.
To be fair, lack of coherence and coarse language helped Trump connect with blue collar Americans so why shouldn't it work for Biden?
Re fake news and 5G, interesting to remember that "Dr" Naomi Wolf was an adviser to Bill Clinton (and later to Al Gore). Anyone care to comment on Belfast's "3G clear air"?
That book was just a rewriting for public consumption of her recent PhD thesis. Alarmingly, from Oxford! And they didn't pick up that it was so deeply erroneous presumably because even though it was really about social and legal history, she did it with their English literature deparment IIRC so it didn't receive scrutiny from anyone with actual knowledge of the subject under discussion. She's still got that PhD though... Narks me right off that she plonks the "Dr" in front of her name on twitter to enhance her authority even when spouting nonsense about 5G. Obviously she wasn't a science adviser but it's interesting she was an adviser to Bill Clinton and Al Gore bearing in mind their reputation for leaning towards technocratic/scientific input.
Given the topic, I doubt if it would have got any expert scrutiny from their faculty of Modern History either.
But given the nature of this scandal, she should be under investigation to have her doctorate withdrawn, because it’s (a) it’s pretty serious and (b) it’s hardly a one-off - she has a long history of falsifying evidence to support fraudulent theses.
Me and my pub mates have been discussing this for weeks, latterly on Zoom.
An important question is how any exit needs to satisfy two totally disparate groups. On the one hand, those who want to have the freedom to get out of it and, on the other, those who want the safety of maintaining it. I can’t see how there can be a never ending lockdown, yet I also can’t see how there could also be a complete abandonment of it.
And so it comes back to phasing. Complete lockdown will have to be abandoned sooner rather than later, because the economy won't take the damage, but it'll need to be wound down carefully.
You would've thought that the easiest thing to do would be to...
*Encourage businesses to continue enabling everybody who can work from home to do so *Ease some restrictions on socialising (allow public gatherings of 5 or 10 rather than 2, advise that children and younger adults can visit each others' residences) *Let the "non-essential" retailers and services (everything from clothing to garden centres to hairdressers) resume trading, subject to basic social distancing requirements *Re-open the schools BUT *Keep the over 70s (possibly extending the advice to the over 60s) and the medically vulnerable, shielded people under current advice, to be extended for a longer period if necessary *Keep the hospitality trade, gyms, spectator sports and cultural establishments shuttered for the time being
Or some such similar combination of measures - enabling the illness to spread in a controlled way through the less vulnerable sections of the population, and to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of propping up those sectors of the economy that need to remain closed for longer to avert a second spike of hospital admissions.
One would fervently hope that there's a large team of number crunchers in Whitehall working on these trade-offs and preparing a plan. We can't stay under the current lockdown for more than a limited period, so the big questions are, of course, how slowly do we need to ease it for public health reasons, and how quickly to we need to ease it for economic and social reasons? Answers must be forthcoming if public confidence in the lockdown strategy - not to mention business confidence in there being some kind of light at the end of the tunnel - isn't simply going to collapse.
As expected, Angela Rayner will also be party chair (Lavery's current role)
Right... that isn't exactly a vote of confidence in his new deputy. She isn't the greatest media performer (as today has already shown). She might grow into it. But this looks like a place to keep her out of actual policy development.
That's silly - if she hadn't been, you'd say it was a snub. She's just been elected by a large margin of the membership, so seems a sensible choice as party chair.
Oxfordsimon is going to try put a negative spin on whoever Starmer appoints. It's totally predictable and therefore of very limited value.
Always nice to being on the receiving end of an ad hominem attack.
But my point still stands - whether or not you agree with it (or anything else I say) - Rayner should have been in line for a more substantial role given the mandate she received. Party Chair is something that Harriet Harman had as Deputy Leader - and she also had government/shadow cabinet roles at the same time.
This looks like a snub to me.
Simply an observation, I am commenting on the predictability/bias of your posts and therefore their lack of any real insight. That is my opinion on your posting history not an ad hominem attack.
BTW, work on my bug hotel was cut short today when I ran out of nails. I think it looks nice and rustic. Wor Lass is a bit more sceptical.
In other news, one of our neighbours has secured a delivery slot from Morrisons and kindly asked if we wanted to add anything to the order.
I did my first online shop ever. Booked it with Morrisons two weeks ago. Supposed to arrive between 2 and 3pm today. Just rang now , they said the driver has delivered to wrong address. Said they had 5 complaints already from York today, where the same had happened. They will speak with the driver tomorrow. Maybe someone is getting free food ?
That’s rubbish. I hope they give you a delivery tomorrow and a substantial discount.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
I would say he is no more than 30-40% chance. The rally round effect has already been seen and he is still 2-5 points behind Biden. On top of that, Biden is stronger among blue collar whites than Clinton, so the electoral college advantage will be smaller for Trump. Plus people will be very angry in six months time and people tend to blame the President regardless of fault. And this time he is clearly at fault.
It is always important and illumi acting to dip into the average Joe Trump supporter with a Twitter account-verse.
They are loving his press conferences, they are "powerful" they are "unvarnished". They have memory holed his early claims that there wouldn't be any problem.
To be fair, lack of coherence and coarse language helped Trump connect with blue collar Americans so why shouldn't it work for Biden?
As I've endlessly stated on here I think the Trump appeal to blur collars workers is grossly over stated. Trump won because voters in the rust belt hated Hillary.
A guy who got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin isn't calling on some savant like connection to the common man.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
I would say he is no more than 30-40% chance. The rally round effect has already been seen and he is still 2-5 points behind Biden. On top of that, Biden is stronger among blue collar whites than Clinton, so the electoral college advantage will be smaller for Trump. Plus people will be very angry in six months time and people tend to blame the President regardless of fault. And this time he is clearly at fault.
It is always important and illumi acting to dip into the average Joe Trump supporter with a Twitter account-verse.
They are loving his press conferences, they are "powerful" they are "unvarnished". They have memory holed his early claims that there wouldn't be any problem.
The Trump base is secure. The election will depend on the rest.
Till we've got a vaccine, unless it's been pretty much completely stamped out various aspects of life ain't returning to how they were even in the absence of any sort of official control. I sure as hell am not going to the cinema till I've either got through it , am vaccinated or it's disappeared.
A senior medical acquaintance of mine says there is unlikely to be a vaccine, for a long time, if ever. Apparently these coronaviruses are real buggers to fight.
Cheering.
He could be wrong, of course
Some of our best friends have almost certainly had the virus, so it'll be drinks round theirs first up.
Me and my pub mates have been discussing this for weeks, latterly on Zoom.
An important question is how any exit needs to satisfy two totally disparate groups. On the one hand, those who want to have the freedom to get out of it and, on the other, those who want the safety of maintaining it. I can’t see how there can be a never ending lockdown, yet I also can’t see how there could also be a complete abandonment of it.
And so it comes back to phasing. Complete lockdown will have to be abandoned sooner rather than later, because the economy won't take the damage, but it'll need to be wound down carefully.
You would've thought that the easiest thing to do would be to...
*Encourage businesses to continue enabling everybody who can work from home to do so *Ease some restrictions on socialising (allow public gatherings of 5 or 10 rather than 2, advise that children and younger adults can visit each others' residences) *Let the "non-essential" retailers and services (everything from clothing to garden centres to hairdressers) resume trading, subject to basic social distancing requirements *Re-open the schools BUT *Keep the over 70s (possibly extending the advice to the over 60s) and the medically vulnerable, shielded people under current advice, to be extended for a longer period if necessary *Keep the hospitality trade, gyms, spectator sports and cultural establishments shuttered for the time being
Or some such similar combination of measures - enabling the illness to spread in a controlled way through the less vulnerable sections of the population, and to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of propping up those sectors of the economy that need to remain closed for longer to avert a second spike of hospital admissions.
One would fervently hope that there's a large team of number crunchers in Whitehall working on these trade-offs and preparing a plan. We can't stay under the current lockdown for more than a limited period, so the big questions are, of course, how slowly do we need to ease it for public health reasons, and how quickly to we need to ease it for economic and social reasons? Answers must be forthcoming if public confidence in the lockdown strategy - not to mention business confidence in there being some kind of light at the end of the tunnel - isn't simply going to collapse.
So, I work in a school. I have a co-morbidity. I’m in my fifties. Students get the virus and spread the virus. The chances are that, if I get it, I may be permanently harmed, even if I don’t die.
You think that I’m going to be forced back to work, in such a situation?
This is the issue, you can’t compel people either way; neither to stay locked down, nor to have to endanger themself by being pushed out of it.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
Do you really see him wanting to stick around to sort out the aftermath?
Mr Ukip has a point. Why is being in the park standing up OK but lying down not?
Because you can lie down in your own home! The rules are that you can go out to exercise.
The impenetrable thickness of some people never ceases to amaze me.
If going to the park is dangerous, ban it. If it is not, then let people sunbathe. The trouble with inconsistent regulations is people misunderstand them, and so inadvertently break them.
They are not inconsistent. They are very simple.
Stay at home. You are allowed out to exercise. Sunbathing is not exercise
Till we've got a vaccine, unless it's been pretty much completely stamped out various aspects of life ain't returning to how they were even in the absence of any sort of official control. I sure as hell am not going to the cinema till I've either got through it , am vaccinated or it's disappeared.
A senior medical acquaintance of mine says there is unlikely to be a vaccine, for a long time, if ever. Apparently these coronaviruses are real buggers to fight.
Cheering.
He could be wrong, of course
i.e. Government must decide how many people must die, at what rate and over what period of time, as we plot a path back to a more normal time. Because eternal lockdown will inevitably result in socio-economic collapse.
More time will buy more research into treatments to mitigate the illness, but there's (most probably) no magic bullet.
Till we've got a vaccine, unless it's been pretty much completely stamped out various aspects of life ain't returning to how they were even in the absence of any sort of official control. I sure as hell am not going to the cinema till I've either got through it , am vaccinated or it's disappeared.
A senior medical acquaintance of mine says there is unlikely to be a vaccine, for a long time, if ever. Apparently these coronaviruses are real buggers to fight.
Cheering.
He could be wrong, of course
i.e. Government must decide how many people must die, at what rate and over what period of time, as we plot a path back to a more normal time. Because eternal lockdown will inevitably result in socio-economic collapse.
More time will buy more research into treatments to mitigate the illness, but there's (most probably) no magic bullet.
I don't hear such pessimstic views first hand. And there are other senior virologists - including the splendidly named Larry Brilliant - who would disagree!!
Me and my pub mates have been discussing this for weeks, latterly on Zoom.
An important question is how any exit needs to satisfy two totally disparate groups. On the one hand, those who want to have the freedom to get out of it and, on the other, those who want the safety of maintaining it. I can’t see how there can be a never ending lockdown, yet I also can’t see how there could also be a complete abandonment of it.
And so it comes back to phasing. Complete lockdown will have to be abandoned sooner rather than later, because the economy won't take the damage, but it'll need to be wound down carefully.
You would've thought that the easiest thing to do would be to...
*Encourage businesses to continue enabling everybody who can work from home to do so *Ease some restrictions on socialising (allow public gatherings of 5 or 10 rather than 2, advise that children and younger adults can visit each others' residences) *Let the "non-essential" retailers and services (everything from clothing to garden centres to hairdressers) resume trading, subject to basic social distancing requirements *Re-open the schools BUT *Keep the over 70s (possibly extending the advice to the over 60s) and the medically vulnerable, shielded people under current advice, to be extended for a longer period if necessary *Keep the hospitality trade, gyms, spectator sports and cultural establishments shuttered for the time being
Or some such similar combination of measures - enabling the illness to spread in a controlled way through the less vulnerable sections of the population, and to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of propping up those sectors of the economy that need to remain closed for longer to avert a second spike of hospital admissions.
One would fervently hope that there's a large team of number crunchers in Whitehall working on these trade-offs and preparing a plan. We can't stay under the current lockdown for more than a limited period, so the big questions are, of course, how slowly do we need to ease it for public health reasons, and how quickly to we need to ease it for economic and social reasons? Answers must be forthcoming if public confidence in the lockdown strategy - not to mention business confidence in there being some kind of light at the end of the tunnel - isn't simply going to collapse.
So, I work in a school. I have a co-morbidity. I’m in my fifties. Students get the virus and spread the virus. The chances are that, if I get it, I may be permanently harmed, even if I don’t die.
You think that I’m going to be forced back to work, in such a situation?
This is the issue, you can’t compel people either way; neither to stay locked down, nor to have to endanger themself by being pushed out of it.
You limp along with larger class sizes if you have to. The schools furlough staff who are too frightened to go back to work.
As soon as the lockdown is eased there will be these trade-offs. Indeed, as soon as the lockdown is eased, it's seemingly inevitable that more people will die of Covid-19 as a result.
But the lockdown can't last for all eternity. And anything that can't last forever must, necessarily, stop. It's merely a matter of when, and how.
Sky had a brief description of the filming... had to be in a large enough room, and the only other person was a cameraman wearing mask and gloves. One step away from a royal zorb ball.
'Only' 525 fatalities in Italy today - lowest since March 19th (about 10 days into their lockdown). Still quite a lot of new cases reported (4300), but I wonder if they are picking up milder cases. But still good news overall.
4300 cases 27 days into lockdown. Does this show that lockdowns work with this virus ?
Yes, of course the Italian numbers show that lockdowns can work.
There is the same number of new infections today as there were 9 days ago.
I have 4300 today compared with 5959 nine days ago. And compared with a peak of 6557 on 22 March, just under two weeks after the lockdown.
And I would guess they are testing more now than they were previously?
Another example of a lockdown working would be Austria. Given transport links to Northern Italy there must have been a high risk of something similar happening there. But they have had a pretty strict lockdown, and the daily rate of new cases is now down to about a quarter of what it was at its peak. The daily rate of deaths is also falling, and the apparent fatality rate is only about 1.6%. It looks as though they may escape with around 500 deaths in total or fewer - less than our current daily rate.
Mr Ukip has a point. Why is being in the park standing up OK but lying down not?
Because you can lie down in your own home! The rules are that you can go out to exercise.
The impenetrable thickness of some people never ceases to amaze me.
If going to the park is dangerous, ban it. If it is not, then let people sunbathe. The trouble with inconsistent regulations is people misunderstand them, and so inadvertently break them.
They are not inconsistent. They are very simple.
Stay at home. You are allowed out to exercise. Sunbathing is not exercise
God Almighty Charles: the regulations are not hard to read. You are allowed out if you have a “reasonable excuse”.
Whether sunbathing, say, at the end of exercising is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. I can easily think of many circumstances when it isn’t and some where it might be.
But let’s not misrepresent what the rules actually say.
Personally, I think CV-19 increases the chance of President Trump being re-elected. With any national emergency, there is a desire to rally around the leadership, and we're seeing that now.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government - there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
I would say he is no more than 30-40% chance. The rally round effect has already been seen and he is still 2-5 points behind Biden. On top of that, Biden is stronger among blue collar whites than Clinton, so the electoral college advantage will be smaller for Trump. Plus people will be very angry in six months time and people tend to blame the President regardless of fault. And this time he is clearly at fault.
It is always important and illumi acting to dip into the average Joe Trump supporter with a Twitter account-verse.
They are loving his press conferences, they are "powerful" they are "unvarnished". They have memory holed his early claims that there wouldn't be any problem.
To be fair, lack of coherence and coarse language helped Trump connect with blue collar Americans so why shouldn't it work for Biden?
As I've endlessly stated on here I think the Trump appeal to blur collars workers is grossly over stated. Trump won because voters in the rust belt hated Hillary.
A guy who got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin isn't calling on some savant like connection to the common man.
I wouldn't bet on Trump's ability to make the common man (or, more importantly, the common woman) love him, but I'd also not bet against Trump's ability to make the common man (and woman) hate and fear Biden as much as they did Hillary, by November.
BTW, work on my bug hotel was cut short today when I ran out of nails. I think it looks nice and rustic. Wor Lass is a bit more sceptical.
In other news, one of our neighbours has secured a delivery slot from Morrisons and kindly asked if we wanted to add anything to the order.
I did my first online shop ever. Booked it with Morrisons two weeks ago. Supposed to arrive between 2 and 3pm today. Just rang now , they said the driver has delivered to wrong address. Said they had 5 complaints already from York today, where the same had happened. They will speak with the driver tomorrow. Maybe someone is getting free food ?
That’s rubbish. I hope they give you a delivery tomorrow and a substantial discount.
They re - credit my card . Sending a £ 2O voucher in post. However no other slots suggested.
I am in remission with blood cancer Myeloma. So on the governments vulnerable list . Sheilding for 12 weeks.
Me and my pub mates have been discussing this for weeks, latterly on Zoom.
An important question is how any exit needs to satisfy two totally disparate groups. On the one hand, those who want to have the freedom to get out of it and, on the other, those who want the safety of maintaining it. I can’t see how there can be a never ending lockdown, yet I also can’t see how there could also be a complete abandonment of it.
And so it comes back to phasing. Complete lockdown will have to be abandoned sooner rather than later, because the economy won't take the damage, but it'll need to be wound down carefully.
You would've thought that the easiest thing to do would be to...
*Encourage businesses to continue enabling everybody who can work from home to do so *Ease some restrictions on socialising (allow public gatherings of 5 or 10 rather than 2, advise that children and younger adults can visit each others' residences) *Let the "non-essential" retailers and services (everything from clothing to garden centres to hairdressers) resume trading, subject to basic social distancing requirements *Re-open the schools BUT *Keep the over 70s (possibly extending the advice to the over 60s) and the medically vulnerable, shielded people under current advice, to be extended for a longer period if necessary *Keep the hospitality trade, gyms, spectator sports and cultural establishments shuttered for the time being
Or some such similar combination of measures - enabling the illness to spread in a controlled way through the less vulnerable sections of the population, and to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of propping up those sectors of the economy that need to remain closed for longer to avert a second spike of hospital admissions.
One would fervently hope that there's a large team of number crunchers in Whitehall working on these trade-offs and preparing a plan. We can't stay under the current lockdown for more than a limited period, so the big questions are, of course, how slowly do we need to ease it for public health reasons, and how quickly to we need to ease it for economic and social reasons? Answers must be forthcoming if public confidence in the lockdown strategy - not to mention business confidence in there being some kind of light at the end of the tunnel - isn't simply going to collapse.
So, I work in a school. I have a co-morbidity. I’m in my fifties. Students get the virus and spread the virus. The chances are that, if I get it, I may be permanently harmed, even if I don’t die.
You think that I’m going to be forced back to work, in such a situation?
This is the issue, you can’t compel people either way; neither to stay locked down, nor to have to endanger themself by being pushed out of it.
You limp along with larger class sizes if you have to. The schools furlough staff who are too frightened to go back to work.
As soon as the lockdown is eased there will be these trade-offs. Indeed, as soon as the lockdown is eased, it's seemingly inevitable that more people will die of Covid-19 as a result.
But the lockdown can't last for all eternity. And anything that can't last forever must, necessarily, stop. It's merely a matter of when, and how.
Not fear, self preservation. We seem to be doing very well with online learning. I have the same lessons, at the same times, I mark the same work and we have the same meetings. Why, when the greatest risk appears to be having lots of people talking together in small spaces, would schools be the first port of call? It goes against everything we know about this virus. Classes were only half full anyway, as parents took their children out, as they were worried about that fact. They aren’t coming back until the whole school setup is proved to be safe.
It was positively North Korean with the clip of the appreciation of the NHS.
Ah come on. She’s remarkable.
I thought it was excellent - doing her job exactly as it should be done.
Real leadership. They used to say POTUS was leader of the free world. He isn’t. The quiet authority, confidence and humanity projected from this rather unique 90 year old is in a different class.
Comments
I've decided that the key metric is a moving average of the week-over-week change.
Why?
Because there are not uniform numbers of tests done on each day. The weekends tend to have fewer tests (which is reflected in the Sunday and Monday numbers). Plus, there's a ton of variability on a day-to-day basis.
For Italy as a whole, this shows new cases are currently tracking at down 20% week-over-week.
For Lombardy, which was the epicenter of the outbreak and which has tended to lead Italy by four or five days, the number is 28% down.
We can probably expect that the number of active cases will start to decline by next Sunday.
However, although the worst is clearly now behind in Italy (especially as the numbers we're seeing now are for people infected 10-14 days ago), predicting when lockdowns will be eased is a harder call. I would think that realistically four more weeks of these drops (combined with the fact that reported numbers are effectively two weeks in arrears) will probably be the point at which we start to see some easing.
And we always have 9 in the cupboard, at least....
Me and my pub mates have been discussing this for weeks, latterly on Zoom.
Think again, Comrade.
Plus:
- there is a monumental splurge from the government
- there are a lot of Americans who agree with President Trump's concerns about the cure being worse than the disease
I would now reckon he's a 60-70% chance of re-election right now.
Incumbency is very strong for first-term presidents who won from opposition. Only exception in 20thC-21stC being Carter, who was stoppable.
What will probably happen instead: cage everyone, innocent as well as guilty, because it's bureaucratically simpler
I have never rated her but she did win and could have expected a more substantial job. There is work to be done in undoing the Momentum takeover of party structures but I don't think she is the heavyweight necessary to achieve that.
I sure as hell am not going to the cinema till I've either got through it , am vaccinated or it's disappeared.
I agree, but will "increasing" chances be enough? He won last time by the skin of his teeth thanks to Rust Belt.
In other news, one of our neighbours has secured a delivery slot from Morrisons and kindly asked if we wanted to add anything to the order.
‘People wave and cheer when I cycle to work. Never has an epidemiologist been this famous.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8188049/Scientist-leading-Swedens-battle-against-coronavirus-says-Britains-lockdown-gone-far.html
https://twitter.com/Carnage4Life/status/1246579721585868800?s=19
And it's hard to think of how this can be eased gradually, especially if the aim is to avoid too much bureaucracy around who is allowed out for what. I hope the government brainstorming meetings have come up with a few ideas.
--AS
They are loving his press conferences, they are "powerful" they are "unvarnished". They have memory holed his early claims that there wouldn't be any problem.
Booked it with Morrisons two weeks ago.
Supposed to arrive between 2 and 3pm today.
Just rang now , they said the driver has delivered to wrong address.
Said they had 5 complaints already from York today, where the same had happened.
They will speak with the driver tomorrow.
Maybe someone is getting free food ?
But given the nature of this scandal, she should be under investigation to have her doctorate withdrawn, because it’s (a) it’s pretty serious and (b) it’s hardly a one-off - she has a long history of falsifying evidence to support fraudulent theses.
You would've thought that the easiest thing to do would be to...
*Encourage businesses to continue enabling everybody who can work from home to do so
*Ease some restrictions on socialising (allow public gatherings of 5 or 10 rather than 2, advise that children and younger adults can visit each others' residences)
*Let the "non-essential" retailers and services (everything from clothing to garden centres to hairdressers) resume trading, subject to basic social distancing requirements
*Re-open the schools
BUT
*Keep the over 70s (possibly extending the advice to the over 60s) and the medically vulnerable, shielded people under current advice, to be extended for a longer period if necessary
*Keep the hospitality trade, gyms, spectator sports and cultural establishments shuttered for the time being
Or some such similar combination of measures - enabling the illness to spread in a controlled way through the less vulnerable sections of the population, and to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of propping up those sectors of the economy that need to remain closed for longer to avert a second spike of hospital admissions.
One would fervently hope that there's a large team of number crunchers in Whitehall working on these trade-offs and preparing a plan. We can't stay under the current lockdown for more than a limited period, so the big questions are, of course, how slowly do we need to ease it for public health reasons, and how quickly to we need to ease it for economic and social reasons? Answers must be forthcoming if public confidence in the lockdown strategy - not to mention business confidence in there being some kind of light at the end of the tunnel - isn't simply going to collapse.
https://twitter.com/peteradamsmith/status/1246826764619395072?s=21
A guy who got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin isn't calling on some savant like connection to the common man.
You think that I’m going to be forced back to work, in such a situation?
This is the issue, you can’t compel people either way; neither to stay locked down, nor to have to endanger themself by being pushed out of it.
Do you really see him wanting to stick around to sort out the aftermath?
Stay at home. You are allowed out to exercise. Sunbathing is not exercise
More time will buy more research into treatments to mitigate the illness, but there's (most probably) no magic bullet.
The Brits in a nutshell.
After lockdown has ended of course...
As soon as the lockdown is eased there will be these trade-offs. Indeed, as soon as the lockdown is eased, it's seemingly inevitable that more people will die of Covid-19 as a result.
But the lockdown can't last for all eternity. And anything that can't last forever must, necessarily, stop. It's merely a matter of when, and how.
https://twitter.com/JeremyDuns/status/1246877455811477505
I floated in the cross, you slotted it away!
Whether sunbathing, say, at the end of exercising is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. I can easily think of many circumstances when it isn’t and some where it might be.
But let’s not misrepresent what the rules actually say.
The Queen has demonstrated her ability to inspire without politics
Long may she remain with us
You seriously think a windy old palace is a suitable quick turn around venue for an A&E and ventilator hospital??
Sending a £ 2O voucher in post.
However no other slots suggested.
I am in remission with blood cancer Myeloma.
So on the governments vulnerable list .
Sheilding for 12 weeks.