IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 15, 2020 14:52:30 GMT
This shows the Government has not been following the science closely since Day 1, wasted too much time making decisions. Period. The results, many deaths, more confusion & huge economic damage. Some might also question the modelling the government has relied on.
Telegraph has an article written about a recording they've obtained from Professor Medley (according to the Telegraph "oversees mathematical modelling for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies") giving an online lecture he gave to around 100 Cambridge University students on Monday.
"At the moment, we're having to do it by making educated guesswork, and intuition and experience, rather than being able to do it in some kind of semi-formal way,” Prof Medley told his audience.
“But a half good answer given before the decision is made, is infinitely more useful than a perfect answer given after the decision is made.”
but is half a bad answer infinitely less useful?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 15, 2020 9:52:44 GMT
Lots of interesting figures, e.g. R rate in London shown as 0.4 (0.36-0.43, 95% CI). Haven't read yet how they determined this figure (I'd guess modelling not measurement).
Also, IFR (Infection Fatality Ratio): rises with age, e.g. 0.018% for ages 25-44 but 16% (!) for ages 75+.
i.e. nearly 1000 times more fatal in the older age group. Which is why shielding the elderly and sick was indeed the right priority that we and others got so badly wrong. We spent tons of money on intensive care beds due to doomsday forecasts that we needed 10 fold or more higher ITU provision, when we should have gone all in on protecting the elderly - on real evidence on relative mortality that was available at the time. The elderly don't survive ITU, which is a highly invasive treatment, so usually aren't admitted - ITU beds are predominantly for the younger ages. Instead the priority HAD to be stopping the elderly getting the infection. Indeed that was rightly the stated priority prior to the U-turn after the (flawed) Imperial paper. History will tell us the outcome of having lost sight of this fundamental fact about mortality rates from SARS-CoV-2.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2020 18:32:14 GMT
There is no such thing as "the" science. It's convenient both for the government and for the government's opponents to say that there is.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2020 14:39:35 GMT
IF the elderly and vulnerable can be properly shielded, and the health service not over run, then mortality will be/would have been low - that's the theory anyway. I agree but the reality is that they can't - just look at the situation across Europe and North America. There's nothing I want more than to shield/protect the vulnerable and allow elements of society to get back to near normality (whatever that is). People want lots of alternative realities - that we could track and trace like South Korea (without having the government look into your bank accounts, publish your details publicly, and trace you by CCTV etc like they do in South Korea), that we were geographically isolated from the rest of the world so had very few cases to deal with (like New Zealand), that we could forcibly isolate all infected arrivals or locals in rudimentary barracks (like Kerala, Hong Kong), that we were't one of the most busy international hubs in the world receiving cases from the major Asian & European outbreaks before we quite knew what had hit us, that locking down a week earlier somehow solves the problem (see our neighbour Belgium, that locked down early and has higher deaths per capita, and also see what happens when you release lockdown). We had our own style outbreak, with multiple seeds that soon far exceeded our track and trace capacities, without a culture that would allow Asian style intrusions, close to the epicentre and a major international hub - but the one thing we could have done is ruthlessly protect our care homes and other vulnerable groups. We didn't. In my alternative reality we did, and our death rates were halved. I agree everywhere in Europe has failed here - but protecting the vulnerable WAS our declared strategy (not so called "herd immunity") so we should have at least done that. As it was we didn't do one thing or the other, and are looked at with disbelief by the rest of the world. This excellent piece by Sir Lawrence Freedman looks in depth at what was known and why we ended up where we did - without a trace of hindsight anywhere - it is based on contemporaneous documents.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2020 11:42:59 GMT
IF the elderly and vulnerable can be properly shielded, and the health service not over run, then mortality will be/would have been low - that's the theory anyway. How old is 'elderly'? Outside those already in hospitals and care homes, there's the question of whether they want to be "properly shielded" if that came down to them being expected to stay indoors for months longer. Which is where the whole debate on voluntary versus enforced shielding/lockdown comes in. Can people be allowed to make their own decision on risks to themselves (assuming they aren't notably harming others)?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2020 11:20:01 GMT
Median IFR from here is 0.63%. UK population 66mil, herd immunity low threshold at 60%, therefore mortality 250,000. World population 7.8billion, therefore mortality 29.5million. It's not rocket science. Nor is it scare tactics, it's simply reality. But those numbers also assume no improvement in our ability to treat the disease. And that you infect everyone equally - most of that 0.63% is in the old and sick, and if you protect them, then overall IFR is much lower.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2020 11:17:43 GMT
Look, neither of the two differing strategies, that of letting the virus spread and accepting the accompanying mortality, and attempting to eliminate (as distinct from eradicate) the virus, are wrong. The former is not psychopathic or callous and the latter does not destroy the economy. But, if we're going to let the virus spread then we have to accept very high mortality figures.Median IFR from here is 0.63%. UK population 66mil, herd immunity low threshold at 60%, therefore mortality 250,000. World population 7.8billion, therefore mortality 29.5million. It's not rocket science. Nor is it scare tactics, it's simply reality. IF the elderly and vulnerable can be properly shielded, and the health service not over run, then mortality will be/would have been low - that's the theory anyway.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2020 9:21:32 GMT
dan1 A number of the charts I've seen used in the UK daily press conferences compare deaths across countries using a start point of the date 50 deaths were passed.
Worldometers shows the UK passed 50 deaths on Mar 16, when 65 deaths were recorded. For Sweden it was Mar 25, 62 deaths. Hence, Sweden could be said to be running 9 days behind the UK.
UK on May 4 had a total of 28,734 deaths. Wikipedia lists UK population as 66.02m, Sweden's as 10.33m, giving UK:Sweden ratio of 6.391:1. With that ratio and Sweden running 9 days behind the UK, we might expect 28734/6.391, i.e. 4496 deaths in Sweden by May 13, but we see 'only' 3496. Sweden appears to be doing better than the UK.
If (and that's a massive if) Sweden comes out of this better than the UK, there are going to be a huge number of questions asked here.
One would hope that when the dust settles there will be a level headed look at all the statistics to see what lessons can be learned for the greater good.
I think it was previously pointed out that a disproportionate number of Swedish people live alone, which helps.
Did you say - "level headed"?!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2020 9:20:51 GMT
dan1 A number of the charts I've seen used in the UK daily press conferences compare deaths across countries using a start point of the date 50 deaths were passed.
Worldometers shows the UK passed 50 deaths on Mar 16, when 65 deaths were recorded. For Sweden it was Mar 25, 62 deaths. Hence, Sweden could be said to be running 9 days behind the UK.
UK on May 4 had a total of 28,734 deaths. Wikipedia lists UK population as 66.02m, Sweden's as 10.33m, giving UK:Sweden ratio of 6.391:1. With that ratio and Sweden running 9 days behind the UK, we might expect 28734/6.391, i.e. 4496 deaths in Sweden by May 13, but we see 'only' 3496. Sweden appears to be doing better than the UK.
If (and that's a massive if) Sweden comes out of this better than the UK, there are going to be a huge number of questions asked here.
The Swedes predict that everyone will come out about the same in the end, unless they maintain lockdown until there is a vaccine, which they maintain you can't in a Western democracy. i.e. as soon as countries lift lockdowns, there will be second, third waves etc. You can spread it out and delay further via track and trace, but it will still keep coming back if people aren't immune. The gamble we and other European countries are taking is that there will be a vaccine and we can keep infection rates sufficiently low until then. The gamble also depended on protecting the elderly and we failed that - instead we preferentially protected the young who didn't need so much protection - so death rates are higher than they might otherwise have been.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2020 21:20:41 GMT
<snip> In reality, the public finances are screwed, the new normal will be debt levels close to Japan, the pound will devalue, that will import inflation, and we will inflate the debts away over 20-30 years. As the £ devaluing (further) is one of my least favourite things..... Whilst that logic seems fair, doesn't it also depend on what everyone else is doing? The Eurozone and US are also going to be incurring huge debts that they'd perhaps like to inflate away, but we can't all have a devalued currency. Is there a reason you think the UK will do notably worse than everyone else?Above said, I'm not saying it won't. We still have the culmination of the Brexit talks to add a layer of delight to the situation too. I perhaps see that more as the differentiator as to whether GBP will strengthen or weaken. It seems at least a possibility to me that the powers that be might try to find a smoother path through those waters, given the backdrop. Though, we've already seen "we'll reject extensions even if EU ask for it" type talk, so only a slim chance it seems. edit: I forgot the other major factor. GBP's fate seems inextricably tied to the stock market. When we hit the recent bottom, we also hit GBPUSD 1.15. If, as the world and his dog believe, we are going to see further lows, then IMV we will almost certainly see Sterling plummet again. edit2: deposits on Revolut -> exchange currency -> send to Starling History, dear boy, history. Well, that and our huge current account deficit, and Brexit. I've even put a small amount in crypto in case you are right and everyone in the world devalues at the same time. Gold would be the other option, but I just can't seem to bring myself to do it.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2020 21:17:09 GMT
<snip> In reality, the public finances are screwed, the new normal will be debt levels close to Japan, the pound will devalue, that will import inflation, and we will inflate the debts away over 20-30 years. As the £ devaluing (further) is one of my least favourite things..... Whilst that logic seems fair, doesn't it also depend on what everyone else is doing? The Eurozone and US are also going to be incurring huge debts that they'd perhaps like to inflate away, but we can't all have a devalued currency. Is there a reason you think the UK will do notably worse than everyone else? Above said, I'm not saying it won't. We still have the culmination of the Brexit talks to add a layer of delight to the situation too. I perhaps see that more as the differentiator as to whether GBP will strengthen or weaken. It seems at least a possibility to me that the powers that be might try to find a smoother path through those waters, given the backdrop. Though, we've already seen "we'll reject extensions even if EU ask for it" type talk, so only a slim chance it seems. edit: I forgot the other major factor. GBP's fate seems inextricably tied to the stock market. When we hit the recent bottom, we also hit GBPUSD 1.15. If, as the world and his dog believe, we are going to see further lows, then IMV we will almost certainly see Sterling plummet again. edit2: deposits on Revolut -> exchange currency -> send to Starling I have done a lot of that! Only works for Euros unfortunately. So Swiss Francs, Yen and Aussie Dollars are kept on Revolut, which leaves me sightly uneasy given lack of FSCS. Anyone have a recommendation for a cheap and convenient foreign currency account with FSCS?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2020 13:56:46 GMT
A proper land value tax would be my preferred route. Property is grossly undertaxed in the UK, and where it is taxed (eg stamp duty) it is inefficient (stamp duty is a huge barrier to mobility) and avoidable (don't move house, or keep the old property and rent it out). levy an annual land value tax on everyone. If you can't pay (the old pensioner in a huge house issue that is always brought up) then do a "scheme pays" equivalent like with pensions. Income tax is probably at the top of the Laffer curve at 47% at the top, so you'd have to raise basic rate to make any real gains. Might be politically easier to do a Gordon Brown and put up NI 1% for the NHS (with no upper earnings limit so essentially income tax). Pension tax is obviously going to get reformed though there may be many unintended consequences of eg limiting relief to basic rate of tax. And the public sector will get another round of pay freezes after already suffering this for a decade following 2008. Good luck with the new found love for the NHS. In reality, the public finances are screwed, the new normal will be debt levels close to Japan, the pound will devalue, that will import inflation, and we will inflate the debts away over 20-30 years. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot VAT - obvious target is another 1 or 2% on VAT, though perhaps after there has been some recovery in retail. Taxing wealth already acquired is IMO counter to market economics. As it stands, a common theme among all market economies is that obtaining wealth is a good thing. That is what drives competition etc. If owning wealth became a burden or worry it might have all sorts of negative consequences. "....well I'm saving to buy a house....but if I buy it will I be able to pay the taxes on it for the next 50 years? What if they go up during that period....?" My understanding is that is why virtually all taxes are raised on new money earned so that, after tax, the money is save "well earned" from further future tax. Except that double taxation is everywhere. VAT, council tax, stamp duty, excise duty, inheritance tax etc etc are all on money already subject to income tax. You have to raise the money somehow. If you tax incomes too highly, it is counter productive - people work less. So you have to find other means. UK property is grossly undertaxed compared to most of the developed world, especially the beloved US if we are talking market economies.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2020 9:24:20 GMT
Given that we have to pay for the bill that's currenty being racked up, what are people preferred method of paying?
I guess increased income tax would be the most obvious, along with removal of some of the perks associated with pensions (removal of salary sacrifice, phasing out of 25% tax free, reduction in tax relief on contributions).
A proper land value tax would be my preferred route. Property is grossly undertaxed in the UK, and where it is taxed (eg stamp duty) it is inefficient (stamp duty is a huge barrier to mobility) and avoidable (don't move house, or keep the old property and rent it out). levy an annual land value tax on everyone. If you can't pay (the old pensioner in a huge house issue that is always brought up) then do a "scheme pays" equivalent like with pensions. Income tax is probably at the top of the Laffer curve at 47% at the top, so you'd have to raise basic rate to make any real gains. Might be politically easier to do a Gordon Brown and put up NI 1% for the NHS (with no upper earnings limit so essentially income tax). Pension tax is obviously going to get reformed though there may be many unintended consequences of eg limiting relief to basic rate of tax. And the public sector will get another round of pay freezes after already suffering this for a decade following 2008. Good luck with the new found love for the NHS. In reality, the public finances are screwed, the new normal will be debt levels close to Japan, the pound will devalue, that will import inflation, and we will inflate the debts away over 20-30 years. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot VAT - obvious target is another 1 or 2% on VAT, though perhaps after there has been some recovery in retail.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 12, 2020 21:35:44 GMT
Just catching up... RM - I echo the thoughtful posts but I'm struggling to comprehend how someone processes this stuff. Being on his doorstep so to speak and someone they probably knew must be that much harder than if they were treating someone in A&E. Berny - life has a way of reminding you that you're never in control despite your best efforts, I hope what follows will distract you if only for a few minutes (some numbers ). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I couldn't see a post relating to this but for those wishing to track pertinent metrics for England then take a look at the MRC Biostatistics Unit COVID-19 Working Group nowcast and forecast... joshuablake.github.io/public-RTM-reports/Exract from their summary: ...These estimates have provided the bases of forecasts supplied to the Scientific Pandemic Influenza sub-group on Modelling (SPI-M) and to regional PHE teams.
Key metrics for England (see link for 95% confidence intervals): R 0.75 (as low as 0.4 in London) Infections 6.54mil (5.06-8.48mil) Infection rate 12% (population of England is about 56mil) Infection fatality rate (IFR) 0.63%
The data is valid to 10 May and covers all deaths where the fatality had a confirmed positive test. Deaths which have COVID-19 on the death certificate are included in ONS figures but not here; we are looking into their inclusion.I guess the IFR has not been post-stratified to mirror the demographics of England. If not,and we assume (big assumption I admit) that those 70+ have been disproportionately infected (think care/nursing homes) then it may fall. On the other hand, the inclusion of the ONS deaths and further still the excess deaths will increase the IFR. It's worth remembering that deaths relating to previous infections will continue for some time (sadly) even in the absence of any further infections. e.g. we can take the estimate of 56,800 excess deaths (see here) from 11 May, pro-rata for England (48,200), and then derive the IFR from the number infections above (6.54mil) which yields an IFR of 0.74%. The IFR is not a million miles away from that used in the 16 Mar ICL report (0.9% IIRC), and is similar to that estimated for Bergamo from the data scientists. A lower bound on the IFR can be estimated from NYC where there have been over 20,000 deaths which translates to an IFR of 0.24% assuming everyone has been infected. Assuming the true IFR is 0.72% (makes the maths simple!) would imply that a third of New Yorkers have been infected (so far). Interesting as always. Whilst I suspect 0.6% or thereabouts will hold up (and that is actually quite a bit lower than the one used for the Imperial model - deaths would have been a third less) I still think (as you allude to) that a single IFR is a bit meaningless given how much different it is between age groups and prior health status. Younger, healthy people have a tiny IFR, while older, ill people have an enormous one. The lower R in London is also as expected, and reinforces my view that one size fits all won't do - London can and should loosen lockdown quicker than other places to lessen the increasing harms of lockdown. Problem is, the government has made such a mess of the messaging (partly due to their incompetence, but also partly due to a media that that wants everything to be black or white and assumes the public are incapable of understanding anything other than simple one step instructions) that I suspect they won't countenance differential changes by region. EDIT: I should also say that I think a lot has been learned about the best treatment for severe COVID-19 so that more people are surviving. Hence the IFR may reduce a bit over time via that pathway.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 12, 2020 10:01:12 GMT
I had a hernia op a while back and, as I later found out, I was popped a couple of tramadol on my way back up. I knew something wasn't quite right when, as I was later listening to "You and Yours" on the radio, it was the most insightful thing I'd ever heard. This daily consumer affairs show moved me to a transcendental plain of only bliss. I mean, I think there was some new savings account announced so some of the bliss was real perhaps, but still..Oh goodness. I was sky high. I was supplied with a raft of the dope for my recovery at home. Before I continued my trip though, I did some reading about it and it's apparently quite easy to become addicted to. Opiates are very more-ish it turns out. I could certainly relate, I was already rather keen. So I decided to end my trip there. Frankly, with 'Today in Parliament' looming it could have been a bad trip anyway by that point. That made me laugh, thanks . And reminded me that, when I had my wisdom teeth out as a child, well, I don't know what they banged in my arm but I was off my box for about three days . Each to their own - I was in hospital several months back for a bike accident where I smashed my face up - they took one look at me and gave me intravenous morphine - it was a bit "meh" to be honest but it did help the pain. Dihydrocodeine afterwards also helped - but after a week on that the constipation was almost as bad as the facial pain had been. Swings and roundabouts.
|
|