The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
The Germany thing / mortality rate has been explained repeatedly. I even just added a chart which could have a nasty line added for non Covid issues caused by lockdown.rick_chasey said:Genuine question, given the deaths in the U.K. are so much higher than some other countries and there are few that are higher, why are you all so reluctant to call the approach thus far a failure?
When you read about the indecision, the lack of preparation, the missing PPE, do you all brush that by?
The PPE thing is the practical and quantifiable problem we should be all over and throwing resources at. I agree this should be better.0 -
Futures are actually negative right now.focuszing723 said:
That does sound bloody cheap. It's a shame it's not relative at the pumps with all the tax.tailwindhome said:
Basically they’ve run out of storage and they’re still drilling.
WTI though not Brent. Only yanks buy WTI.0 -
Why can’t you understand that locking down aggressively is a gamble on a material change in stopping / treating the virus at the cost of different, yet guaranteed, negative outcomes.0
-
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
See morstar's graph and reply to you above.rick_chasey said:Genuine question, given the deaths in the U.K. are so much higher than some other countries and there are few that are higher, why are you all so reluctant to call the approach thus far a failure?
When you read about the indecision, the lack of preparation, the missing PPE, do you all brush that by?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Personally, I don't expect to be back. Not with oil prices being what they are and this week being the end of an invoice month.kingstongraham said:Straw poll - When do people who are currently working from home expecting to return to working in an office?
Otherwise I would have said mid to late May for some if not most but I'd continue to wfh if possible due to underlying conditions.
Then again, this herd immunity thing has long, long way to go so it may be some time...
Maybe they'll try to rush that up? At what cost though?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I think people are just wary of jumping to conclusions of what is or isn't a long term solution (how many deaths are needed for an approach to be a failure?).rick_chasey said:Genuine question, given the deaths in the U.K. are so much higher than some other countries and there are few that are higher, why are you all so reluctant to call the approach thus far a failure?
When you read about the indecision, the lack of preparation, the missing PPE, do you all brush that by?
I think most of us have said that the PPE situation is a mess. It needs someone in the suppliers warehouses making sure what they are sending is the same as what we think we've ordered as a starter and then a better system of prioritising and delivering the kit when it arrives.0 -
Most don't base our view of a source on the author's nationality.coopster_the_1st said:https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-corona
I believe from what I have read from others that this is a 4000 case study Dutch serology test.
Link here that summarises the results:
4th column is Chance of hospitalisation
5th column is Chance of IC admission
From what I understand from this, C19 is a lot less severe than originally thought.
Probably the most important bit from this:
So Corona adds extra risk of death. But you shouldn't just add the risks of corona and "normal" together. After all, anyone who dies from corona can no longer die from another illness or from an accident. We can only determine the total mortality probability this year afterwards.
The chance of dying from corona is smaller than the "normal" chance of dying. In that sense, the risks of corona can be called low, especially for people under 60. And under 50, the chance of IC admission is also very small, and so the potential burden on the ICs from that group is also small.
I suspect this report is too positive for our Dutch gloomster for him, even if it is producted by his native country.
Given the number of people aged 70+ and the seriousness for them, they seem to have overlooked a pretty significant section of the population.
I'll see your graph and raise you.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Based on your graph we have a looooong way to go before we stop diverging and start converging. By which time some have had an extra few years of life.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Very interesting report, thanks for posting.kingstongraham said:This from an unexpected source is a rather excellent document on a possible sustainable exit strategy: https://institute.global/sites/default/files/inline-files/A Sustainable Exit Strategy, Managing Uncertainty Minimising Harm.pdf
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Brent Crude Futures aren't looking too bright either though.rick_chasey said:
Futures are actually negative right now.focuszing723 said:
That does sound bloody cheap. It's a shame it's not relative at the pumps with all the tax.tailwindhome said:
Basically they’ve run out of storage and they’re still drilling.
WTI though not Brent. Only yanks buy WTI.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Good point Rick. It's like a ghost town outside my house in the evenings.rick_chasey said:
Futures are actually negative right now.focuszing723 said:
That does sound bloody cheap. It's a shame it's not relative at the pumps with all the tax.tailwindhome said:
Basically they’ve run out of storage and they’re still drilling.
WTI though not Brent. Only yanks buy WTI.
I did hear at some point I forgot when, OPEC getting together. I bet that was an easy meeting.0 -
Use a bit of imagination. This is how battery energy density has changed over timeelbowloh said:
Electric planes do not have the capacity of a train running multiple times an hour. People and the media keep getting too focused on the "high speed" element. HS2 is all about capacity, not speed.First.Aspect said:
This just smacks of being in a hole, furiously digging.rjsterry said:
The last reported direct cost of cancellation was £12bn on top of £7.5bn already spent. That was back in January before C19 was being considered. That's obviously less than the projected final cost, but the point is that would be the best part of £20bn for nothing as opposed to £100bn of something which has some asset value and at least stands a chance of generating some revenue.surrey_commuter said:
Genuine question - why is it more expensive to cancel?rjsterry said:
Because HS2 has already started being built. They've CPed the land. Demolished buildings. It's past the point of being more expensive to cancel than go forward. Plus Johnson loves a bit of transport infrastructure so I think this train has left the station.focuszing723 said:
That couldn't be a better analogy for me. The time HS2 is complete, for all we know the fast lane could turn into a 10 metre apart autonomous vehicle congestion buster.First.Aspect said:
Yes. For example I can immediately see that stimulating the economy by building a white elephant isn't the way to go.rick_chasey said:Yeah sorry First, you operate on a higher plane to me.
Canals, we need more canals. Much better than moving goods by pack horse. Lots of navvies would get jobs in the meantime.
Why not put the money into smaller projects dispersed around the country as already mentioned.
I always think the snake oil purveyors of these pet projects rush to get to this mythical point
What are the odds of there being electric regional aeroplanes by the time it is finished, rendering it an instant Caledonian Canal?
Okay, not realistic for the important line between Birmingham and London that will drive property prices up in the Midlands and save commuters 8 minutes a day, but for more remote routes such as to, say Manchester, Leeds or Glasgow, high speed rail for the UK will be obsolete before it is built.
Out of curiosity, what is the value of the land that the government now owns, and is it factored into those figures? Are the other potential land uses factored in? Or do those figures just assume that the government would shrug its shoulders and turn all the land over to grazing?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/History-of-development-of-secondary-batteries-in-view-of-energy-density-Data-is-taken_fig1_255748960
If you think composite materials technology is also developing how long will it be before the twain shall meet?
And I assume that people will not take a train if they can fly in less time. And if there is demand there will be flights.
Remember, I'm not talking about the broadening the London commuter belt phase here, I'm talking about the later phases which won't get built anyway because they don't benefit London.0 -
rjsterry said:
Most don't base our view of a source on the author's nationality.coopster_the_1st said:https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-corona
I believe from what I have read from others that this is a 4000 case study Dutch serology test.
Link here that summarises the results:
4th column is Chance of hospitalisation
5th column is Chance of IC admission
From what I understand from this, C19 is a lot less severe than originally thought.
Probably the most important bit from this:
So Corona adds extra risk of death. But you shouldn't just add the risks of corona and "normal" together. After all, anyone who dies from corona can no longer die from another illness or from an accident. We can only determine the total mortality probability this year afterwards.
The chance of dying from corona is smaller than the "normal" chance of dying. In that sense, the risks of corona can be called low, especially for people under 60. And under 50, the chance of IC admission is also very small, and so the potential burden on the ICs from that group is also small.
I suspect this report is too positive for our Dutch gloomster for him, even if it is producted by his native country.
Given the number of people aged 70+ and the seriousness for them, they seem to have overlooked a pretty significant section of the population.
I'll see your graph and raise you.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Based on your graph we have a looooong way to go before we stop diverging and start converging. By which time some have had an extra few years of life.
And yet (as previously mentioned) there seems to be no consensus on why Germany is such an outlier in terms of deaths compared to almost all other major countries apart from a few in the Far East.rjsterry said:
Most don't base our view of a source on the author's nationality.coopster_the_1st said:https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-corona
I believe from what I have read from others that this is a 4000 case study Dutch serology test.
Link here that summarises the results:
4th column is Chance of hospitalisation
5th column is Chance of IC admission
From what I understand from this, C19 is a lot less severe than originally thought.
Probably the most important bit from this:
So Corona adds extra risk of death. But you shouldn't just add the risks of corona and "normal" together. After all, anyone who dies from corona can no longer die from another illness or from an accident. We can only determine the total mortality probability this year afterwards.
The chance of dying from corona is smaller than the "normal" chance of dying. In that sense, the risks of corona can be called low, especially for people under 60. And under 50, the chance of IC admission is also very small, and so the potential burden on the ICs from that group is also small.
I suspect this report is too positive for our Dutch gloomster for him, even if it is producted by his native country.
Given the number of people aged 70+ and the seriousness for them, they seem to have overlooked a pretty significant section of the population.
I'll see your graph and raise you.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Based on your graph we have a looooong way to go before we stop diverging and start converging. By which time some have had an extra few years of life.
They are certainly not way ahead in terms of the infection rate, although for some reason that hasn't been mentioned."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
One of the things I've noted recently is that scientists are a sort of new but unsuspecting celebrity. They aren't used to speaking to the press and they are sounding unusually over optimistic to me. The Oxford academic who is 80% sure their vaccine will work? Reality is more like 5%.focuszing723 said:
Great to hear, hope the trials work out fine.Pross said:
The BBC Wales report didn't cover that but they were interviewing those working on it directly and there weren't any caveats. From my experience academics are usually keen to downplay breakthrough reports. Let's hope it does though. Still need a reliable anti-body test though.TheBigBean said:
Does it definitely work? We heard this before about a Cambridge one, and then nothing happened.Pross said:A new method of testing has been developed by the University of South Wales that will enable results within half an hour using a cheap, portable device. Should be available in hospitals and care homes in the next few weeks. Not an anti-body test but should help minimise spread and quickly identify potential contact.
When I was a scientist, admittedly not for very long, I always thought experiments might work or I wouldn't have done them. Thing is, no one from the Telegraph interviewed me just as I'd hit go on the machine that goes "ping" to ask how I thought things would turn out. I'm guessing I'd have been more bullish than after first round of peer review.0 -
Shattered my phone screen today so none of these graphs make any sense any more.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It's not that, it's more your autistic fixation on testing that made me want to drive over my phone multiple times, like somehow watching the train wreck in HD would have helped.rick_chasey said:Genuine question, given the deaths in the U.K. are so much higher than some other countries and there are few that are higher, why are you all so reluctant to call the approach thus far a failure?
When you read about the indecision, the lack of preparation, the missing PPE, do you all brush that by?0 -
-
Ha, you beat Covid19, that's the main thing Raver.ddraver said:What a wonderful series of life choice it was to start careers in Oil & Gas and Tourism....
Yay me!
😭
I'm sure skiing will get back to normal in the future. Cruises however, god those half a billion quid ships hauled up, the stuff of nightmares? How many elderly people are going to want to get back on one of them?0 -
I can't add much more to that.Pross said:
I think people are just wary of jumping to conclusions of what is or isn't a long term solution (how many deaths are needed for an approach to be a failure?).rick_chasey said:Genuine question, given the deaths in the U.K. are so much higher than some other countries and there are few that are higher, why are you all so reluctant to call the approach thus far a failure?
When you read about the indecision, the lack of preparation, the missing PPE, do you all brush that by?
I think most of us have said that the PPE situation is a mess. It needs someone in the suppliers warehouses making sure what they are sending is the same as what we think we've ordered as a starter and then a better system of prioritising and delivering the kit when it arrives.0 -
My graph is simply to demonstrate a shape that somebody is in complete denial is a possibility.rjsterry said:
Most don't base our view of a source on the author's nationality.coopster_the_1st said:https://esb.nu/blog/20059695/we-kunnen-nu-gaan-rekenen-aan-corona
I believe from what I have read from others that this is a 4000 case study Dutch serology test.
Link here that summarises the results:
4th column is Chance of hospitalisation
5th column is Chance of IC admission
From what I understand from this, C19 is a lot less severe than originally thought.
Probably the most important bit from this:
So Corona adds extra risk of death. But you shouldn't just add the risks of corona and "normal" together. After all, anyone who dies from corona can no longer die from another illness or from an accident. We can only determine the total mortality probability this year afterwards.
The chance of dying from corona is smaller than the "normal" chance of dying. In that sense, the risks of corona can be called low, especially for people under 60. And under 50, the chance of IC admission is also very small, and so the potential burden on the ICs from that group is also small.
I suspect this report is too positive for our Dutch gloomster for him, even if it is producted by his native country.
Given the number of people aged 70+ and the seriousness for them, they seem to have overlooked a pretty significant section of the population.
I'll see your graph and raise you.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Based on your graph we have a looooong way to go before we stop diverging and start converging. By which time some have had an extra few years of life.
It is a massive error to extrapolate short term numbers over the entire lifecycle.
I agree wholeheartedly there is a debate to be had about why a certain approach is to be taken. My problem is that some are simply extrapolating short term numbers with certainty and 100% ignoring repeated arguments to the contrary.
We have some interesting control groups establishing how quickly the lines will converge and at what cost.
As I say, it is trading certain harms against unknown harms whichever position you take. My opinion will evolve over time. I don’t pretend to know the right answer but will continue to dispute the certainty of assumptions volunteered as absolutes.1 -
Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
On the furlough scheme, if the government can now see this through smoothly to payment it will be a tremendous achievement.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Ahahaha.First.Aspect said:
It's not that, it's more your autistic fixation on testing that made me want to drive over my phone multiple times, like somehow watching the train wreck in HD would have helped.rick_chasey said:Genuine question, given the deaths in the U.K. are so much higher than some other countries and there are few that are higher, why are you all so reluctant to call the approach thus far a failure?
When you read about the indecision, the lack of preparation, the missing PPE, do you all brush that by?
How gutted were you it was a criterion in Britain’s exit conditions?
Might want to refrain from calling people who annoy you autistic, or autistic like, mind.0 -
Ok. Given we went into lockdown because bodies started piling up, why would that not happen again if everything went back to something approaching normal? The straightforward herd immunity approach has conveniently forgotten that.First.Aspect said:
It's not that, it's more your autistic fixation on testing that made me want to drive over my phone multiple times, like somehow watching the train wreck in HD would have helped.rick_chasey said:Genuine question, given the deaths in the U.K. are so much higher than some other countries and there are few that are higher, why are you all so reluctant to call the approach thus far a failure?
When you read about the indecision, the lack of preparation, the missing PPE, do you all brush that by?
We need to test and test some more to know what is going on before all the hospital admissions and deaths. Keep people from infecting others as much as possible.0 -
Hate to ask, but did you drive over it multiple times?tailwindhome said:Shattered my phone screen today so none of these graphs make any sense any more.
0 -
I don't see why those of us who can work from home would go back to office based this year. Those who can't be home based get the extra space in the office. Wearing masks.
When is there likely to be any gigs, nightclubs or vertical drinking establishments generally? I just can't see it at all while there's a desire to restrict transmission.0 -
Risen from -$40 to -$20 in a few minutes. Weird sh!t.rick_chasey said:
Futures are actually negative right now.focuszing723 said:
That does sound bloody cheap. It's a shame it's not relative at the pumps with all the tax.tailwindhome said:
Basically they’ve run out of storage and they’re still drilling.
WTI though not Brent. Only yanks buy WTI.0 -
Yeah.kingstongraham said:
Risen from -$40 to -$20 in a few minutes. Weird sh!t.rick_chasey said:
Futures are actually negative right now.focuszing723 said:
That does sound bloody cheap. It's a shame it's not relative at the pumps with all the tax.tailwindhome said:
Basically they’ve run out of storage and they’re still drilling.
WTI though not Brent. Only yanks buy WTI.
Well if you’re a trader who’s found some storage, quids in!0 -
But if you take Angela Merkle talking in such great detail about the precision of their balancing the infection rate. She was talking about 1.0-1.3 infection rates. If we assume they are 1% through infecting people after a month or so and have established control, that is a very long lifecycle of lockdowns. That is not without cost.rjsterry said:
Yes, we all understand the premise. There's just a huge helping of assumptions in both lines @morstar 's made up graph. If the X axis is months, this assumes no effective treatment or vaccine in the next two years, which is pretty pessimistic, not to mention the thousands of people who die a year or two earlier on the upper curve. I mean, we're all going to die at some point, but generally we consider an extra year to be worth going for if given the opportunity.Stevo_666 said:
Well put - a very clear and simple explanation.morstar said:
This what the mortality rates COULD look like.
Taking extensive action now is no guarantee of a better outcome.
Does that help?
Series 2 is Germany, Series 1 UK.
Anyone who doesn't get that must be a bit thick, or desperate not to understand.
More relevantly, with all this talk of going back to the office, that's a real proposition in Germany, now. And with a lower and more accurately measured infection rate they are better placed to do that without inadvertently kicking off another spike.
Sweden could be out the other end by early summer.
Suicides are up. That is a fact. Other problems anticipated.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/
I personally have seen only minor changes to my life In lockdown but am already feeling frustration creeping in.
Have you considered a lot of older people value quality of life over prolonging life at all costs? I can understand why some may think I’d rather enjoy the year than spend it in hiding. Especially if you know you realistically only have a few years of good health remaining.
0
