COVID19

[Karabiner]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

Good piece I found.

Best article I’ve read making the case against drastic action at this point, thanks for finding it.

The neighbour's made at least three essential journeys in her Range Rover already today but I Will NOT be going out.

My name is Michael Pain..

[Doobs]

Fingers crossed the report is right.   

It isn't.  It misrepresents what was a fairly poor piece of "research."

https://www.livescience.com/half-the-uk-infected-coronavirus-covid19.html

Basically they ran a few scenarios, one of which was pretty damn optimistic, added a few unrealistic assumptions and concluded it was possible half the population was already infected.   That scenario does not even fit to known data.  The press has ignored the less favourable outcomes in the "research" and presented it as "Oxford University says 50% of the population has already been infected."

It is possible that 50% of the population has been infected, but it is pretty unlikely and shouldn't be the basis of public policy. 

[EvilPie]

Actually we didn’t even touch the packaging, and the packaging didn’t even touch a surface in the house, we just emptied the food out and slung the boxes.

Does heat kill it? If so how hot does it have to be?

I was thinking about takeaway food the other day as I fancied a bag of chips. I was thinking of maybe sticking it in the microwave for a minute to kill anything that may be lingering but don't know if it would help.

[kukushkin88]

Actually we didn’t even touch the packaging, and the packaging didn’t even touch a surface in the house, we just emptied the food out and slung the boxes.

Does heat kill it? If so how hot does it have to be?

I was thinking about takeaway food the other day as I fancied a bag of chips. I was thinking of maybe sticking it in the microwave for a minute to kill anything that may be lingering but don't know if it would help.

This would kill it, certainly at high power. Anything upwards of 60C would do it, with a safety margin.

[AdamM]

.

[kukushkin88]

The 15:08 update appears to confirm that they are going to manipulate our figures in a way to ensure we can’t assess success/failure of government inaction and that we can’t be compared in a meaningful way to other nations. Not exactly helpful in tackling the problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52044452

[Marky147]

I'm sure it is at the forefront of their mind to manipulate public perception, and not to try getting the country through this.

[nirvana]

The 15:08 update appears to confirm that they are going to manipulate our figures in a way to ensure we can’t assess success/failure of government inaction and that we can’t be compared in a meaningful way to other nations. Not exactly helpful in tackling the problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52044452

The fuller story, if accurate on PM with Super Evan, is that yesterday's numbers covered 12 hours with the intention of transitioning to a regular report at 2pm each day for deaths to midnight the prior day. Today's numbers are expected to reflect 36 hours and from tomorrow a regular 24 hour number

So expect a big jump today - take an approx average for a 24 hour period or do what you like with the number and then from tomorrow should be a regular thing.

Just been to B & Q click and collect, confirmed that tinfoil hats in very short supply currently

[nirvana]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

piece I found.

FYP

I am an actuary and have been mathematically modelling for 30 years.  I am not Woodsey's bloke down the pub.

These type of articles are thouroughly misleading.   There are some scenarios where the death rate is kept to a few thousand and mortality is just like a bad flu epidemic.   If that happens great, and we went too far.  We lost a lot of jobs because we were too cautious.  That isn't so good, but we can celebrate most of us have our health and can resume our lives.

There are a lot of scenarios where this does not happen.   500,000 deaths in a few weeks wasn't some extreme scenario, I looked through the paper and you wouldn't really argue with any of it.  In these scenarios we lose hundreds of thousands of people we didn't need to.    We lose a lot of jobs too as we were too reckless.  We will get on with our lives too, but we lose a lot of people and the economy is trashed anyway. 

It isn't the fact it is new that has caused the reaction, it is the fact it will leave huge numbers of bodies piled up in a very short period.  We can cope with 500,000 deaths over the year, we can't cope with 500,000 extra ones in a month. 

I could go through the article and criticise a lot of it, but am home schooling so don't have the time right now.  But focussing on current death rates is idiotic, really idiotic.  We know what is likely to happen in 2 weeks with inadequate action, we can see Italy and Spain.  We know people don't die the second they are infected, they die 17 days later on average.  We know this lag is there.  We know cases were increasing every 2 or 3 days and it will take a couple of weeks until we can see the effect of the new measures. 

If in a month or so there is a really good outcome, and our NHS isn't overwhelmed, and we discover half the population already has immunity.  We overeacted and we can all go back to booking our holidays and reopening our pubs.  Some businesses that were on the brink already will be lost.  I can look for work again, and my hope to retire a bit before pension age may be tralistic again.   I think that would be a good result in the circumstances, and will be happy we avoided the really bad results.

Some of the assumptions will be shown to be wrong, so what?

I'm totes sold on we're overreacting but tbf, I don't believe there's a climate emergency either

It is a similar thinking.

If you think there is an element of doubt, so there is only a 90% chance that the climate warming had been caused by human action.  

Do you
a) stop burning coal or

b) write an article in the Spectator saying there is a 10% chance this isn't down to us, and tell people assumptions can be wrong, so go build loads of coal powrler stations and go buy yourself big V8 cockmobiles.

Different ways of looking at the same thing, but I'd be firmly trying to do something rather than do nothing.

Is it b) ?

[kukushkin88]

The 15:08 update appears to confirm that they are going to manipulate our figures in a way to ensure we can’t assess success/failure of government inaction and that we can’t be compared in a meaningful way to other nations. Not exactly helpful in tackling the problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52044452

The fuller story, if accurate on PM with Super Evan, is that yesterday's numbers covered 12 hours with the intention of transitioning to a regular report at 2pm each day for deaths to midnight the prior day. Today's numbers are expected to reflect 36 hours and from tomorrow a regular 24 hour number

So expect a big jump today - take an approx average for a 24 hour period or do what you like with the number and then from tomorrow should be a regular thing.

Just been to B & Q click and collect, confirmed that tinfoil hats in very short supply currently

Thanks for the info. I’m aware I’m closer than I’ve ever been before to needing a tinfoil hat (and a cat in a tinfoil hat) on this. Let’s wait and see the next numbers.

[nirvana]

The 15:08 update appears to confirm that they are going to manipulate our figures in a way to ensure we can’t assess success/failure of government inaction and that we can’t be compared in a meaningful way to other nations. Not exactly helpful in tackling the problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52044452

The fuller story, if accurate on PM with Super Evan, is that yesterday's numbers covered 12 hours with the intention of transitioning to a regular report at 2pm each day for deaths to midnight the prior day. Today's numbers are expected to reflect 36 hours and from tomorrow a regular 24 hour number

So expect a big jump today - take an approx average for a 24 hour period or do what you like with the number and then from tomorrow should be a regular thing.

Just been to B & Q click and collect, confirmed that tinfoil hats in very short supply currently

Thanks for the info. I’m aware I’m closer than I’ve ever been before to needing a tinfoil hat (and a cat in a tinfoil hat) on this. Let’s wait and see the next numbers.

Nick Watt of Newsnight was on as well backtracking a little on his assertion that the NHS can't release death stats until they get permission from the family. They do aim to inform families before including the fact of a death in the stats, which can cause a 'very slight delay'. They also ask families if they are happy to release other data, eg age, other conditions and so some will decline and they just report the fact of a death from the virus or at least that the person had the virus when they died.

[kukushkin88]

The 15:08 update appears to confirm that they are going to manipulate our figures in a way to ensure we can’t assess success/failure of government inaction and that we can’t be compared in a meaningful way to other nations. Not exactly helpful in tackling the problem.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52044452

The fuller story, if accurate on PM with Super Evan, is that yesterday's numbers covered 12 hours with the intention of transitioning to a regular report at 2pm each day for deaths to midnight the prior day. Today's numbers are expected to reflect 36 hours and from tomorrow a regular 24 hour number

So expect a big jump today - take an approx average for a 24 hour period or do what you like with the number and then from tomorrow should be a regular thing.

Just been to B & Q click and collect, confirmed that tinfoil hats in very short supply currently

Thanks for the info. I’m aware I’m closer than I’ve ever been before to needing a tinfoil hat (and a cat in a tinfoil hat) on this. Let’s wait and see the next numbers.

Nick Watt of Newsnight was on as well backtracking a little on his assertion that the NHS can't release death stats until they get permission from the family. They do aim to inform families before including the fact of a death in the stats, which can cause a 'very slight delay'. They also ask families if they are happy to release other data, eg age, other conditions and so some will decline and they just report the fact of a death from the virus or at least that the person had the virus when they died.

Thank you, that all makes sense.

[Doobs]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

piece I found.

FYP

I am an actuary and have been mathematically modelling for 30 years.  I am not Woodsey's bloke down the pub.

These type of articles are thouroughly misleading.   There are some scenarios where the death rate is kept to a few thousand and mortality is just like a bad flu epidemic.   If that happens great, and we went too far.  We lost a lot of jobs because we were too cautious.  That isn't so good, but we can celebrate most of us have our health and can resume our lives.

There are a lot of scenarios where this does not happen.   500,000 deaths in a few weeks wasn't some extreme scenario, I looked through the paper and you wouldn't really argue with any of it.  In these scenarios we lose hundreds of thousands of people we didn't need to.    We lose a lot of jobs too as we were too reckless.  We will get on with our lives too, but we lose a lot of people and the economy is trashed anyway. 

It isn't the fact it is new that has caused the reaction, it is the fact it will leave huge numbers of bodies piled up in a very short period.  We can cope with 500,000 deaths over the year, we can't cope with 500,000 extra ones in a month. 

I could go through the article and criticise a lot of it, but am home schooling so don't have the time right now.  But focussing on current death rates is idiotic, really idiotic.  We know what is likely to happen in 2 weeks with inadequate action, we can see Italy and Spain.  We know people don't die the second they are infected, they die 17 days later on average.  We know this lag is there.  We know cases were increasing every 2 or 3 days and it will take a couple of weeks until we can see the effect of the new measures. 

If in a month or so there is a really good outcome, and our NHS isn't overwhelmed, and we discover half the population already has immunity.  We overeacted and we can all go back to booking our holidays and reopening our pubs.  Some businesses that were on the brink already will be lost.  I can look for work again, and my hope to retire a bit before pension age may be tralistic again.   I think that would be a good result in the circumstances, and will be happy we avoided the really bad results.

Some of the assumptions will be shown to be wrong, so what?

I'm totes sold on we're overreacting but tbf, I don't believe there's a climate emergency either

It is a similar thinking.

If you think there is an element of doubt, so there is only a 90% chance that the climate warming had been caused by human action.  

Do you
a) stop burning coal or

b) write an article in the Spectator saying there is a 10% chance this isn't down to us, and tell people assumptions can be wrong, so go build loads of coal powrler stations and go buy yourself big V8 cockmobiles.

Different ways of looking at the same thing, but I'd be firmly trying to do something rather than do nothing.

Is it b) ?

For some

[Doobs]

I didn't mention earlier, but on my way back from my run in the park there was a police car in the car park.   It may just have been coincidence, but he appeared to tail me most of the way home.  I accept he may just have been looking for someone else, but imagine if that is the future?

[Marky147]

I didn't mention earlier, but on my way back from my run in the park there was a police car in the car park.   It may just have been coincidence, but he appeared to tail me most of the way home.  I accept he may just have been looking for someone else, but imagine if that is the future?

Not likely to be the future, but it is the present.