IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 22, 2020 12:00:38 GMT
I wonder if this excess death calculation is as relevant as people suggest.
Take somebody who has 6 months to live, but contracts the virus and dies tomorrow. They appear in the calculation as an excess death, but if you carry on aggregating excess deaths over a period of 6 months they will drop out of the stastics (as they would have died anyway).
Maybe we need to monitor excess deaths over a far longer period of time to see the true effect, which opens up the question of how much does your life need to have been cut short by to qualify.
Another depressing reality of this virus is that it doesn't just kill those on their last legs. Years of Life Lost is 14 for men, and 12 for women. After taking account of underlying long term conditions it falls to 13 and 11 years, respectively. Research published from Wellcome Trust... COVID-19 – exploring the implications of long-term condition type and extent of multimorbidity on years of life lost: a modelling studywellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75Just for context: The biggest cause of death in males in the under 50s in the UK is suicide/poisoning of undetermined origin (without even allowing for the under-reporting of suicide - it is even worse if include accidents/misadventure). Average years of life lost? 47 years.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 18:26:40 GMT
thoughtful Twitter thread about how we were successful in rapidly freeing up NHS capacity but in doing so inadvertently infected care homes.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 18:16:17 GMT
I don't disagree, but.... the pub? God I miss the pub. Oh - wait... I think the issue with pubs will be staff. Those of us going can make an informed choice to go or not, and do as much physical distancing as we can, and hopefully they would have hand gel everywhere. But the staff need protecting, so do you put them in PPE? (staff protection was the final straw for smoking in pubs too) No chance customers wearing masks, that should go without saying.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 18:12:44 GMT
Ask yourself why professionals such as doctors and health workers that come into close contact with infected people wear face masks? The company that produced my respirator (3M) would have been sued long ago if their claims about protection from organic gas were not true. Are you suggesting the established PPE providers and their customers are wasting their time? The masks aren't the problem, it's the people wearing them.
In tightly controlled medical conditions there is no dispute about their usefullness. But that is with proper masks, face fit testing and a rigorous disposal regime (how many NHS front line staff do you see wearing a mask over facial hair).
none. Some of my best mates with fine facial hair have had to lose it.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 18:11:30 GMT
There is no evidence that wearing masks helps significantly (if there is can you post it).
Czech have an infection rate of 811 per million population. That puts them 65th worst performer out of over 200 countries. There are plenty of other countries that are performing better than Czech without 100% wearing of masks. There is no substitute for social distancing and washing your hands.
Ask yourself why professionals such as doctors and health workers that come into close contact with infected people wear face masks? The company that produced my respirator (3M) would have been sued long ago if their claims about protection from organic gas were not true. Are you suggesting the established PPE providers and their customers are wasting their time? To be fair, masks are but one small part of infection control used by health professionals managing COVID-19 patients. Masks on their own are not much good if you don't wash your hands, practice proper donning and doffing, use all the other items of PPE, dispose of them properly and sort out your undergarments too. There really IS no better evidence than for handwashing, followed by social distancing/isolation as needed. Sure, masks may help a bit and may not do enough harm to outweigh that benefit, but they are no panacea, and I hear too much about masks and far too little about handwashing at the moment.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 18:04:24 GMT
Major public health campaign to get people to wear them in places where physical distancing not possible would be worthwhile. Criminalising and policing the non-wearing of masks would not IMHO. Does the UK criminalise breaking the rules? NO. A fine, may be. I have better experience with the police than any traffic wardens TBH. I do believe the promotion of such a simple measures won't hurt. Not asking the government to hide the successful measures implemented in other countries. Asian countries like South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong do not make wearing masks mandatory, but majority are wearing them in public. The UK criminalised breaches of lockdown, as well as using on the sport fines.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 18:02:14 GMT
Major public health campaign to get people to wear them in places where physical distancing not possible would be worthwhile. Criminalising and policing the non-wearing of masks would not IMHO. I don't disagree, but.... the pub? God I miss the pub. Oh - wait...
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 17:25:06 GMT
Major public health campaign to get people to wear them in places where physical distancing not possible would be worthwhile. Criminalising and policing the non-wearing of masks would not IMHO.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 15:32:30 GMT
To be honest I do not know if it is necessary outdoors but I think that this virus can 100% be erradicated with extreme caution and respirators are a big part of that caution in my opinion. We do not know if there will ever be a vaccine that works and more importantly we do not know the long term effects of the virus.
I think that is nowhere near 100% likely
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 15:28:15 GMT
I would say until more is known about the virus non-essential international travel from any country should remain at a minimum. For example, what if people who have "recovered" are still infectious? What if there are different strains in different countries which can lead to reinfection? - we just dont know enough about this virus in my opinion.
We do however know a lot about the negative effects of a long lockdown. If we keep it going because of all the possible "what ifs" we could end up doing a whole lot of harm.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 19, 2020 8:37:08 GMT
I am about to take my Pension from a Defined Benefit/Final Salary Pension Scheme and, basically, I don't trust my former Employers to get the calculations correct on the Pension they have quoted me that I will receive. In particular I need to independently check that the assumptions etc that they use in their Pension Income calculations are "fair", "reasonable" and/or "acceptable" etc. I probably need to hire an Actuary or Pensions Calculations Specialist of some kind to do this vetting/checking/auditing but wonder if learned colleagues out there can confirm that this course of action is correct, or is there another avenue to pursue? Apologies if what I am wanting to achieve is not very clear, it's late and what little articulation I possess is fast deserting me as I type. As always, "Many Thanks" in advance. A Grateful OzBoy. I'm a bit lost Scheme rule are scheme rules - contributions, accrual rates etc - and are usually decided by trustees of the scheme and revised periodically. Surely any assumptions are scheme wide issues affecting all members? Not sure how you can challenge them, other than basis on which they have calculated final salary, years of contributions, any reductions for early retirement etc. Perhaps there are small print issues in your scheme - in which case you would need a pensions expert for sure.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 18, 2020 18:43:23 GMT
I have to agree that this is very poorly explained. I've just spent the last couple of hours trying to get my head round this, and the first of many many questions I have is .... Does this mean that once this goes live we will have to pay a charge (in ASMX's own crypto currency) to trade on the SM? (or will that only apply to trading on other SMs where we are not members of the particular platform on which a loan was originated?) If its the former then that will be the end of my association with ABL. I have kept at a barge pole distance from crypto-bollocks so far and I have no intention of changing that stance. If its the latter then no matter, as I have no intention in participating in a cross platform SM until it has been running for at least couple of years to prove itself. Even then I'm not going to be in a position to do any sort of DD, however minimal, on some Aussie or Singaporean borrower. As we said in the email... nothing, apart from the way the SM looks and the additional functionality, will change. Nope, you wont be charged ASM on Ablrate or any otherAs we have said, if you want to just use Ablrate as it is.. then no worriesI think the original plans were not to charge, according to this earlier post, so I suspect the changed financial circumstances may have something to do with it. Several other platforms have introduced (eg Mintos) or increased (eg Landlord Invest) SM fees, though none charge both sides. Assetz of course just has a new AUM fee. Fair enough, you might say, but I don't see how you can dress a new SM charge as increasing liquidity.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 18, 2020 16:11:46 GMT
Yes there will be a 0.25% fee and it will be charged to buyer and seller. The platform is being put together to increase liquidity for all and to put the fee in perspective it is 42p on the average trade of the secondary market of £168. Liquidity in P2P and in private debt in general is, we believe, paramount in the coming years. We would also imagine that those not able to withdraw from other platforms would have happily paid a fee to be able to access liquidity. By implementing the new market we aim to increase origination, create better risk management tools for lenders and allow greater diversification. The company is a separate technology provider and needs to create revenue of course and at present we absorb a lot of the costs for lenders, from such providers: Each withdrawal costs us 40p next day or £3.50 same day and is not charge to lenders, we pay a monthly management fee for the IFISA service, which is not passed on to lenders. We pay 0.25% on all debit card transactions, which we don't pass on. These amount to circa £70k+ per annum and that is before legal fees that we don't pass on. So we have kept our service free for lenders and there will be no charge on primary loans, of course. So if you are a casual user of the marketplace it won't materially make a difference. On the terms, we have reserved the right to charge 0.25% on the secondary market since we launched it. We never charged it because we wanted to prove the concept that such a secondary market could operate successfully. In choosing to pass on or absorb costs we model the benefits and cost. It may be that we absorb this cost too if, as we expect, that implementation increases revenues and profits but liquidity on any platform is a service to lenders. A large volume of trades happen on the market for which we do not earn anything at all because we believe liquidity is massively important, take take that to another level will benefit everybody so it is not unreasonable to charge a small fee for it, but we shall see what effect it has on our business and act accordingly. If you are charging it to both sides it is an 84p charge on the £168 trade. Seems to me a big risk of reducing liquidity in the SM by charging both sides.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 18, 2020 15:21:52 GMT
Same understanding as you sapphire - equal allocations across all accounts regardless of amount offered for sale (assuming you're best price natch...). I had a sale yesterday where the amounts sold seemed to confirm that - total available fell by twice my sale though I was something like 80% of the amount available.
(As an aside it's an interesting structure for a SM. Could argue about "fairness" but it does reduce the incentive for small sellers to drive the price down to fill their sale - which might otherwise be a result of the one-way transparency of the AC SM. How well it works if it's not widely known is another question of course....)
Yes - it means you can match the largest discount and still sell rather than have to exceed it to sell. I like that aspect.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 21:52:23 GMT
takes more than a few days to die with COVID-19 - ~3 weeks would be a more likely delay Doesn't really change the theory though. It doesn't really matter how far deaths lag infections they should line up. sure, agreed, but the rate of increase/fall in deaths will tell you R from ~3 weeks ago was just the point I was making
|
|