blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 03:00:51 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  COVID19
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 119 120 121 122 [123] 124 125 126 127 ... 305 Go Down Print
Author Topic: COVID19  (Read 353772 times)
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1830 on: April 29, 2020, 10:02:15 AM »

...
Kush, Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I think I’ve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.

In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.

Kush - you know a bias is a prejudice right?

So if you're saying your bias is based on "I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government" you're saying that you don't think that's an objective opinion(?)

"I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany. "

Is closer - a more realistic description might be you're biased against anything you think doesn't lead to a more equitable society - primarily anything the Tories do          :p

I guess I was simplifying the language for the purpose of responding to PP. You’re quite right to correct me. I don’t believe there is any bias in my belief that the governance of this country has been getting progressively worse since around 2012. Same for my view that having a populist government, led a by a clown who believes in English exceptionalism, was unfortunate timing for this crisis.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1831 on: April 29, 2020, 10:07:21 AM »

Testing everyone would be fantastic but how practical could it ever be?

There are apparently an average of just over 100000 people arrive at Heathrow alone every single day. Do we test all of those in case they've picked something up whilst away?

Do we just test the ones who've been somewhere that's quite bad?

Do we test a random sample of people from somewhere quite bad?

If we have an average of 50 people testing at Heathrow and it takes 10 minutes to pluck someone from the crowd and get them tested you could get through 7000 in a day. That would be incredible and probably save us all but at what cost? Doubtless a lot less than totally closing the country but how could it ever be done?

Testing on a huge scale just can't possibly work unless there's a re-usable self applied test that can be distributed to everyone.

In theory it's the perfect solution but it just can't happen.


You would have to restrict international travel for a period (length unknown atm). You would have to accept that the problem wasn’t resolved anywhere until it was resolved everywhere. You would need a strict lockdown until new daily infections were <300. You would need a testing capacity of about 250,000 a day and about 20,000 people working in tracing teams. The government is planning something close to this but it’s glacial progress atm. Any country with low levels of public investment and small manufacturing capacity is starting at a huge disadvantage on this.

Say what??

Is that a typo? If it was anywhere near 300 nobody would give a shit would they?

Don't we just need the recovery rate to be greater than the infection rate assuming of course that the NHS is coping with the number of people currently in their care?


This requirement (<300) would be to ensure that track and tracing capacity wouldn’t be overwhelmed by a phased reopening. The discussion has at least to some extent moved on from primarily considering ICU capacity.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1832 on: April 29, 2020, 10:09:17 AM »

...
Kush, Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I think I’ve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.

In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.

Kush - you know a bias is a prejudice right?

So if you're saying your bias is based on "I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government" you're saying that you don't think that's an objective opinion(?)

"I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany. "

Is closer - a more realistic description might be you're biased against anything you think doesn't lead to a more equitable society - primarily anything the Tories do          :p

I guess I was simplifying the language for the purpose of responding to PP. You’re quite right to correct me. I don’t believe there is any bias in my belief that the governance of this country has been getting progressively worse since around 2012. Same for my view that having a populist government, led a by a clown who believes in English exceptionalism, was unfortunate timing for this crisis.

I was overseas for the first two of the Cameron years and managed to steer clear of all things British politics, halcyon days.
Logged
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #1833 on: April 29, 2020, 10:31:05 AM »


No surprise......those rattling on with judgments need to wait a good 12 months with those judgements happen.....

Outside the payroll

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/germany-lockdown-eases-spread-coronavirus-worsens-200428075843362.html

Just for interest, what judgements do you think people need to wait 12 months on?   

The Government have clearly been making judgements for several months already.  Many things have been known about COVID19 for some time, and we now know more than the Government did when they started making these judgements. 

What? Of course Governments can't wait 12 months to make their judgements, they have to act as soon as possible and hope they get it right.

Pretty sure what Woodsey was referring to was holding off on the "what they should've done......" hindsight bullshit for 12 months.

This Germany stuff seemed pretty obvious to me for what my humble opinion is worth. You can't keep the thing out forever unless you completely close your country forever (or until a vaccine turns up). Every country that has seemingly done brilliantly has to let the f**king thing in at some point unless they plan on completely isolating themselves from the rest of the world for a couple of years.



From where I sit, it seems pretty clear that a lot of people want to shut down debate and criticism of the Government, and I disagree.  If people don't want to hear what some posters say, don't read them, everyone can post what they like within reason.  If they post something you disagree within just debate it or ignore it.

I don't think the countries need to let the fucking thing in, controlling it better would have been better than where we are now.    I would far rather be in South Korea or New Zealand's position than ours, even if I struggle with the end game for most countries, there are a few countries that by acting quicker have got more normality than ours now.

I don't think keeping it at today's level because the NHS is coping is correct either.  They need to get it down further, so that the staff can work more normal shifts, as the medical people clearly can't work long shifts on COVID wars for months, and working in the care industry must be pretty hellish right now.  

I think the moves to try and get more COVID free space in hospitals and COVID free hospitals are a good way forward.  I try to give them credit where due, but it is also ok to criticise failures.  
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #1834 on: April 29, 2020, 10:39:49 AM »

Excess deaths now in the range 41,000 to 48,000

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Mortality%20monitor%20Week%2016%202020%20v01%202020-04-28.pdf

Several people have been ridiculing the idea that deaths could reach 100,000 this year if we move to just shield the elderly.  It seems pretty clear that deaths could reach 100,000 this year even if we don't.   Whilst the hospital deaths may have peaked, it seems uncertain that care home deaths have peaked, and there is no certainty the way down is rapid enough even if we carry on as we are.   

Are these total death figures available for other nations?

https://euromomo.eu/

I’ll wait for an actuary or a statistician to advise on the interpretation of these figures.

I don't think I'd spend much time worrying what every otehr country does, but I think adjusting ours to make them more realistic and then comparing them with other country's unadjusted figues is pretty misleading.  It is clear that we are understating, but it is also clear many other countries are too.  For instance, I can remember people posting evidence that Italy had been understating COVID death rates fairly early on in the pandemic.

I think it is clear that we are doing worse than average in amongst advanced nations, but any conclusions that we are worst seem a big stretch.   And looking forward, I'd say that it is also very likely that some advanced countries are trying to move too quickly, so I will be surprised if it turns out we are the worst there either.   
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Jon MW
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6191



View Profile
« Reply #1835 on: April 29, 2020, 10:44:44 AM »

...

I don't think the countries need to let the fucking thing in, controlling it better would have been better than where we are now.    I would far rather be in South Korea or New Zealand's position than ours, even if I struggle with the end game for most countries, there are a few countries that by acting quicker have got more normality than ours now.

...

What I was suggesting earlier with the article Kush linked to is they pretty much think the same.

But to do what South Korea or New Zealand did would require 500,000 tests a day - from January. The US has the biggest capacity at the moment and that's only 200,000 a day. (EDIT: and it wouldn't have the same effect either but that's a bit more nuanced)

You don't "let" or "stop" a microscopic virus into your country - it either comes in or it doesn't.
Logged

Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain  - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
EvilPie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14253



View Profile
« Reply #1836 on: April 29, 2020, 10:57:30 AM »


No surprise......those rattling on with judgments need to wait a good 12 months with those judgements happen.....

Outside the payroll

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/germany-lockdown-eases-spread-coronavirus-worsens-200428075843362.html

Just for interest, what judgements do you think people need to wait 12 months on?   

The Government have clearly been making judgements for several months already.  Many things have been known about COVID19 for some time, and we now know more than the Government did when they started making these judgements. 

What? Of course Governments can't wait 12 months to make their judgements, they have to act as soon as possible and hope they get it right.

Pretty sure what Woodsey was referring to was holding off on the "what they should've done......" hindsight bullshit for 12 months.

This Germany stuff seemed pretty obvious to me for what my humble opinion is worth. You can't keep the thing out forever unless you completely close your country forever (or until a vaccine turns up). Every country that has seemingly done brilliantly has to let the f**king thing in at some point unless they plan on completely isolating themselves from the rest of the world for a couple of years.



From where I sit, it seems pretty clear that a lot of people want to shut down debate and criticism of the Government, and I disagree.  If people don't want to hear what some posters say, don't read them, everyone can post what they like within reason.  If they post something you disagree within just debate it or ignore it.

I don't think the countries need to let the fucking thing in, controlling it better would have been better than where we are now.    I would far rather be in South Korea or New Zealand's position than ours, even if I struggle with the end game for most countries, there are a few countries that by acting quicker have got more normality than ours now.

I don't think keeping it at today's level because the NHS is coping is correct either.  They need to get it down further, so that the staff can work more normal shifts, as the medical people clearly can't work long shifts on COVID wars for months, and working in the care industry must be pretty hellish right now.  

I think the moves to try and get more COVID free space in hospitals and COVID free hospitals are a good way forward.  I try to give them credit where due, but it is also ok to criticise failures.  

Apologies if it came across differently, I thought I was debating but I completely understand if the tone of my post appears otherwise. However it may seem, my thoughts aren't politically biased in any way, I have no loyalty to any party but I like to think of myself as a realist.

I genuinely don't see how you can practically keep the virus out completely given the current international capacity for testing. I use the term 'practically' because of course you can easily shut anything out simply by closing all of your airports and seaports.

Of course controlling it better would have been the best option but how exactly? What should have been done differently?

I've used the term 'NHS coping' a few times but I don't believe at any point I've said they're coping now. If I talk about the NHS coping I mean exactly what you're saying which is back to a state of staff on standard hours and the same number of patients coming in as are going out.

Logged

Motivational speeches at their best:

"Because thats what living is, the 6 inches in front of your face......" - Patrick Leonard - 10th May 2015
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1837 on: April 29, 2020, 11:19:32 AM »

You should wait and see what happens with our new lockdown before easing it.   The effect of "our" social distancing is uncertain.   The virus may peak a couple of weeks after the new rules were implemented (which I assume is where this comes from), but it may keep on rising for longer, albeit at a slower rate.

There is absolutely no certainty.   As an example, Italy is still on an upward curve despite taking a lot of neasures.  When we see them start reducing we can probably be more hopeful, not now.

Agreed, mostly, we can probably learn more quickly from just looking at Lombardy numbers initially. There is a downward trend in new infections in Lombardy.

If you have the time, could you run this through the Doobs auditing process? Many thanks 🙏.

https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-toll-for-covid-19-is-at-least-4-times-the-official-numbers-b5af0edc-6eeb-11ea-925b-a0c3cdbe1130.shtml


This one, for the likelihood of Italy understating numbers being really high at that point.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1838 on: April 29, 2020, 12:50:41 PM »


This is interesting in terms of the Public Inquiry:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/04/29/paul-bowen-qc-learning-lessons-the-hard-way-article-2-duties-to-investigate-the-governments-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/

The investigation into the deaths of individual health workers, having downgraded the disease classification to better suit the PPE we had, is not likely to go well for HMG.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1839 on: April 29, 2020, 12:54:14 PM »

You should wait and see what happens with our new lockdown before easing it.   The effect of "our" social distancing is uncertain.   The virus may peak a couple of weeks after the new rules were implemented (which I assume is where this comes from), but it may keep on rising for longer, albeit at a slower rate.

There is absolutely no certainty.   As an example, Italy is still on an upward curve despite taking a lot of neasures.  When we see them start reducing we can probably be more hopeful, not now.

Agreed, mostly, we can probably learn more quickly from just looking at Lombardy numbers initially. There is a downward trend in new infections in Lombardy.

If you have the time, could you run this through the Doobs auditing process? Many thanks 🙏.

https://www.corriere.it/politica/20_marzo_26/the-real-death-toll-for-covid-19-is-at-least-4-times-the-official-numbers-b5af0edc-6eeb-11ea-925b-a0c3cdbe1130.shtml


This one, for the likelihood of Italy understating numbers being really high at that point.

I’m so pleased that Taleb is on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1255452784696143872?s=21
Logged
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #1840 on: April 29, 2020, 02:19:20 PM »

Just popped up on my linkedin.  Joseph Lu, who has done a lot of good work has charted care home deaths in England and Wales.   There is a big lag in care home deaths, but talk of peaking may well be premature.  It is short, but for those that can't, or won't, do linkdin, they were still increasing rapidly 2 weeks ago.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joseph-lu-2a7ba518_mortality-livelonger-insurance-activity-6660955220794712065-Mpx4
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Chompy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11852


Expert


View Profile
« Reply #1841 on: April 29, 2020, 02:46:02 PM »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-antibody-test-approval-news-europe-uk-accuracy-abbot-a9490026.html
Logged

"I know we must all worship at the Church of Chomps, but statements like this are just plain ridic. He says he can't get a bet on, but we all know he can."
RickBFA
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2001


View Profile
« Reply #1842 on: April 29, 2020, 03:43:20 PM »

...
Kush, Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I think I’ve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.

In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.

Kush - you know a bias is a prejudice right?

So if you're saying your bias is based on "I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government" you're saying that you don't think that's an objective opinion(?)

"I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany. "

Is closer - a more realistic description might be you're biased against anything you think doesn't lead to a more equitable society - primarily anything the Tories do          :p

I guess I was simplifying the language for the purpose of responding to PP. You’re quite right to correct me. I don’t believe there is any bias in my belief that the governance of this country has been getting progressively worse since around 2012. Same for my view that having a populist government, led a by a clown who believes in English exceptionalism, was unfortunate timing for this crisis.

I’m not the biggest fan of Boris but calling him “a clown” demonstrates your bias even though you don’t believe it’s a biased view.

You’ve bought the act, hook line and sinker. He plays up to that image and ensures he is underestimated by opponents.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3892



View Profile
« Reply #1843 on: April 29, 2020, 03:55:47 PM »

...
Kush, Just out of interest and it’s a question asked in a friendly spirit. Do you consider that you have a bias? If so what do you think it is?

I think I’ve answered this question a ton of times. I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government. I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany.

In spite of this bias, probably in part due to a strong background in scientific fields, I am able to be quite objective when I need to be. Reread the thread if we want to get a feel for who was ahead of the curve at any time in terms of how this was likely to play out.

Kush - you know a bias is a prejudice right?

So if you're saying your bias is based on "I think austerity, Brexit and the handling of this crisis are catastrophic failures of government" you're saying that you don't think that's an objective opinion(?)

"I am biased toward anything that would lead to a more equitable society. Ideologically, a really moderate form of socialism is what I think would be best for the U.K., with similar levels of public investment to, for example, Germany. "

Is closer - a more realistic description might be you're biased against anything you think doesn't lead to a more equitable society - primarily anything the Tories do          :p

I guess I was simplifying the language for the purpose of responding to PP. You’re quite right to correct me. I don’t believe there is any bias in my belief that the governance of this country has been getting progressively worse since around 2012. Same for my view that having a populist government, led a by a clown who believes in English exceptionalism, was unfortunate timing for this crisis.

I’m not the biggest fan of Boris but calling him “a clown” demonstrates your bias even though you don’t believe it’s a biased view.

You’ve bought the act, hook line and sinker. He plays up to that image and ensures he is underestimated by opponents.

My view is a bit more complicated than that, I haven’t bought his act at all. I usually call him ‘the clown show’, this was just the abbreviated version. Calling him a clown is just being a bit charitable, he should be and usually is, called a lot worse.
Logged
Marky147
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22796



View Profile
« Reply #1844 on: April 29, 2020, 04:00:20 PM »


Load up, load up.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 119 120 121 122 [123] 124 125 126 127 ... 305 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.398 seconds with 21 queries.