IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 21:29:09 GMT
Under what powers are you implying he might have been fined? He didn't break any lockdown laws (which are about leaving the house, which he didn't do as far as I understand). She may have mind you. The rules say that you are not allowed to associate with people outside of your household. Are you sure? I understood the law bans gatherings of more than two people - not the case here - and even that refers to public gatherings - again not the case here. EDIT: I have just re-read the original and amended regulations. There is nothing about being not allowed to associate in private with people who are not part of your household. Have a read of the regulations and tell me which part of the law you think he broke and should have been fined for. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made/data.pdfwww.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/447/made/data.pdf
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 17:01:12 GMT
The issue of why aren't we quarantining arrivals seems fairly obvious - there would be no benefit. We have millions of cases here, on some measures the highest number in Europe, and we want to quarantine people from outside where they have a lesser problem? If any quarantining needs to be done it is on the people already here - incomers are if any thing much less likely to have a problem. And if our current lockdown laws are enough for those of us here, they are enough for those coming in. The issue of whether we should have quarantined arrivals - it might have been possible if done early (and I suspect the window was very short if at all possible without benefit of hindsight) but you have to think how it would have been done and accept that London is one of the if not the largest European hubs so that would be a massive logistic ask (let alone the other cities in the UK). The issue of whether we should quarantine arrivals in future - probably would be of some benefit once the numbers are low enough, and done alongside track and trace - but again, how we do it with potentially tens of millions of arrivals and returns over the summer would need a lot of thought. It really isn't the same as New Zealand. The issue of physical distancing is a separate one - airports could and should do it, but if you want physically distant flights it will cost you triple. Probably better to do like trains/tube - limit journeys unless necessary to travel, use masks if you can't keep the physical distance and frequent hand washing (sanitiser in every seat?). Yes, we have millions of cases here NOW. But perhaps not if we'd treated it more seriously at the outset? The Telegraph article sounds quite plausible to me and questions need to be asked. Does anybody here really feel we've met the challenge well? The care home situation alone is a national disgrace. (Ignore me, I'm probably looking for answers as to why my dad's brother was taken early and perhaps allowing that to colour my judgement). Condolences again Berny. The care home situation is a disgrace everywhere - but especially here as, regardless of anything else we may discuss, all policies before and after the Imperial paper all involved protecting the elderly - and we didn't.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 15:48:22 GMT
The tenor of the article is all about presenting terrifying and alarming numbers, which for the period they give mean nothing, did 50% or 99% arrive in January or early February when there was no real reason for preventing people travelling? You're right. Obviously the 18 million all arrived in January. The Madrid fans were a myth. Nobody is arriving today. John 11:35 The issue of why aren't we quarantining arrivals seems fairly obvious - there would be no benefit. We have millions of cases here, on some measures the highest number in Europe, and we want to quarantine people from outside where they have a lesser problem? If any quarantining needs to be done it is on the people already here - incomers are if any thing much less likely to have a problem. And if our current lockdown laws are enough for those of us here, they are enough for those coming in. The issue of whether we should have quarantined arrivals - it might have been possible if done early (and I suspect the window was very short if at all possible without benefit of hindsight) but you have to think how it would have been done and accept that London is one of the if not the largest European hubs so that would be a massive logistic ask (let alone the other cities in the UK). The issue of whether we should quarantine arrivals in future - probably would be of some benefit once the numbers are low enough, and done alongside track and trace - but again, how we do it with potentially tens of millions of arrivals and returns over the summer would need a lot of thought. It really isn't the same as New Zealand. The issue of physical distancing is a separate one - airports could and should do it, but if you want physically distant flights it will cost you triple. Probably better to do like trains/tube - limit journeys unless necessary to travel, use masks if you can't keep the physical distance and frequent hand washing (sanitiser in every seat?).
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 15:19:40 GMT
He was a member of SAGE, and he's been having his married mistress visit him on a regular basis.
You couldn't make it up.
Scotland Yard have decided to take no further action, so he doesn't get the £60 fine that lots of other lockdown miscreants have received Under what powers are you implying he might have been fined? He didn't break any lockdown laws (which are about leaving the house, which he didn't do as far as I understand). She may have mind you.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 15:10:36 GMT
0.0000000000000000000980000000000000595795 I've just looked it up. Wikipedia tells be the prefixes stop at 10-24 (yocto). This is actually 10-40 pounds. What is the point, it's going to add up to the lifetime of several universes before these have any relevance wouldn't it
It's actually ~10 -19, but point taken. At 100% interest per year it would take 100 million billion years to earn 1p. by which time inflation will mean that 1 p is worth 10 -18 p in real terms
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 8:38:11 GMT
Depends on your definition of mass death, the time frame of those deaths, and the underlying infection fatality rate for a given population. At a low IFR, 60% infection of the fit younger population over several months ought not to overwhelm the health service. But the point of herd immunity is that if you get it you protect the non-immune - so an immune younger population prevents spreading to the vulnerable non-immune elderly when you let them out again.
I understand, but my point is that you might split the population into 2 herds.
Herd immunity is not some magic thing that happens to everyone when the infection rate of the population hits a certain number. It's simply that there aren't enough infectable people left to keep the transmission ratio above 1. Non-immune people will still get ill, and pass it on, but not enough of them to keep the virus going for long. I suggest that you can have a herd of herd-immune younger people, but as soon as the virus gets into the older herd then it will transmit through that herd unabated.
I see it as a bit like damming a river. If you built a reasonably effective dam, it can still work to stop most of the flow even if it has some holes in it. But if you create a branch from the river up-stream of the dam and route it around the dam, then all the water that takes that branch will flow just as fast as if the dam had not been there.
Sure - I see your point - if you keep the elderly separate (eg in care homes) then if they get infected it will spread quickly. Herd immunity is supposed to mean the chances of them getting infected in the first place are tiny as the people who might infect them are immune. But a) it's not an absolute all-or-nothing thing (so we do still get occasional outbreaks of eg measles even with herd immunity from vaccination) and b) the higher the immunity in the herd, the lower the chances of those outbreaks.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 6, 2020 7:53:41 GMT
Rates of antibodies from population studies there, the rate the infection is spreading, and the models used by the Swedish epidemiologists studying it. Probably not peer reviewed (though very little is at the moment) and I haven't seen the data myself though. And it might be wrong as it is a prediction. The Stockholmians (if that's the word) will know by June I guess.
Interesting, if true. But it seems contrary to what is happening in other places. Herd immunity requires mass infection, and places with anything remotely approaching mass infection have consequently experienced overwhelmed health services and mass deaths. How is one place achieving mass infection without mass death?
I don't know what they are doing in Sweden. With the age-dependent mortality rates as they are, I just can't see how you can get the minimum 60% infection rate without incurring a far higher death toll. Are they keeping oldies locked away, and letting the young run free? If so, they might reach some theoretical level of herd immunity, only to find that it has not worked because they have created 2 distinct herds: young people (who tend to associate with young people), and old people (who tend to associate with old people). Then when you eventually let the old people out, you find their herd has no immunity, the disease rips through it, and all you've managed is to delay the catastrophic peak.
Depends on your definition of mass death, the time frame of those deaths, and the underlying infection fatality rate for a given population. At a low IFR, 60% infection of the fit younger population over several months ought not to overwhelm the health service. But the point of herd immunity is that if you get it you protect the non-immune - so an immune younger population prevents spreading to the vulnerable non-immune elderly when you let them out again.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 22:06:53 GMT
Predictions are Stockholm will have herd immunity by end of May. evidence? Rates of antibodies from population studies there, the rate the infection is spreading, and the models used by the Swedish epidemiologists studying it. Probably not peer reviewed (though very little is at the moment) and I haven't seen the data myself though. And it might be wrong as it is a prediction. The Stockholmians (if that's the word) will know by June I guess.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 21:42:33 GMT
He was a member of SAGE, and he's been having his married mistress visit him on a regular basis.
You couldn't make it up.
Press loves such stories, they are breadwinners for tabloids... I liked this quote - "I acted in the belief that I was immune", whilst the virus hasn't been around for long enough to know how long immunity lasts. immune both physiologically and metaphorically, it would seem.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 21:41:50 GMT
[/div][/quote] Of course it is. If you were in a DC pension wouldn’t you count the employer contribution as part of your gross pay (if you got one)? [/quote] Anyway, the government have irreversibly screwed it up. Because of tax changes I and many others gave up salary for time off in lieu.I now get 11 weeks annual leave a year, and will probably never take the salary again even though taper tax has been loosened. That, and the fact that earnings 100 -125k are taxed at 63% , means many higher earners have stopped working their buts off[/quote] Exactly this.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 21:37:27 GMT
Fine - take away doctors' pensions and see how you'll staff the NHS. Many are retiring early (with reduced pensions) to do other stuff because the NHS has become a much worse place to work in so many ways, and because the pension tax was an absolute nightmare that made you pay to go to work. Ironically, during COVID-19 much of the shite has been swept away and despite the pressures it is more like practicing medicine again for many. The actuaries have calculated that 34% is what the pension costs - it's a cost neutral scheme. Turn it into a DC (compound 34% of your salary over 40 years) and it wont be quite as good but not too far off - primarily because of the investment risk and lack of guarantee (in fact some would do a lot better assuming decent stock market performance, but some would do worse). Anyway, the complainers have had their way and the new scheme is much worse so I suppose everyone else is happy. EDIT: I say guaranteed, but I wouldn't be quite so sure in the post-COVID world, and with this common notion that the pension is somehow a "gold-plated" gift rather that something that has required you to contribute up to 34% of your salary to build up. Tempting target for the government. Did I say that? I'm just pointing out there are others out there who would be happy to swap their current plight with the situation that the average doctor are currently in.
By the way, I don't think that your employers pension contribution is part of your gross salary, any more than employers NI contribution is.
completely disagree with that. Indeed, so does the government, who encouraged NHS Trusts to pay the money to doctors as salary last year.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 17:48:13 GMT
I’m an nhs doctor and I pay 34% of my gross salary into my DB pension scheme (14% employee, 20% employer). You can’t opt out because then your employer keeps the 20% contribution so if DB pensions stop salaries will have to be increased dramatically. Worryingly I am seeing doctors leave/retire early/emigrate often without any plan but to kick back and relax. I’m worried by time I retire there will be no doctors left in the NHS. There are some huge advantages to DB pensions but there are also disadvantages, mainly that the pot dies when you and spouse die, so offspring can’t inherit it. A luxury that most cannot contemplate because they don't have a big juicy DB scheme to fall back on. Fine - take away doctors' pensions and see how you'll staff the NHS. Many are retiring early (with reduced pensions) to do other stuff because the NHS has become a much worse place to work in so many ways, and because the pension tax was an absolute nightmare that made you pay to go to work. Ironically, during COVID-19 much of the shite has been swept away and despite the pressures it is more like practicing medicine again for many. The actuaries have calculated that 34% is what the pension costs - it's a cost neutral scheme. Turn it into a DC (compound 34% of your salary over 40 years) and it wont be quite as good but not too far off - primarily because of the investment risk and lack of guarantee (in fact some would do a lot better assuming decent stock market performance, but some would do worse). Anyway, the complainers have had their way and the new scheme is much worse so I suppose everyone else is happy. EDIT: I say guaranteed, but I wouldn't be quite so sure in the post-COVID world, and with this common notion that the pension is somehow a "gold-plated" gift rather that something that has required you to contribute up to 34% of your salary to build up. Tempting target for the government.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 15:32:00 GMT
Predictions are Stockholm will have herd immunity by end of May. But at what cost? Deaths per million: Norway 40 Finland 44 Denmark 87 Sweden 283 "Lena Einhorn, the virologist who is one of the few public critics of Sweden's strategy, told the Sunday Telegraph she was incredulous that Dr Tegnell could present this week's dismal figures as good news. "In Finland on Thursday the cumulative number was 13 dead per million inhabitants, in Sweden it was 130 per million inhabitants. Finland: 75 dead, Norway: 152 dead, Sweden: 1,333 dead," she said. "And yet Anders Tegnell is saying 'we are feeling very hopeful'. What are they hopeful about?". " [Figures as at 18th April] Sweden's strategy may yet turn out the best overall, but the jury is definitely still out. I quite agree. It's just that most people have already decided the outcome.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 12:58:29 GMT
Mmm; so suddenly the chief risk factors of Covid 19 are no longer age/ underlying conditions, but rather owning a "dumb" phone or none at all. Really!!!! OK,so we might have to give a concession to those who don't have a 'modern' phone. How about plan B then: people who have the app are allowed out of lockdown earlier than the rest?
We just need a bit of an incentive to get people to do something that will benefit for the majority.
That's the Chinese approach - can't leave home/enter certain areas without tapping your phone.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 12:56:22 GMT
We don't know who is in the uk, so we can't really know whether 60% have taken part! And unless my maths has gone wonky, I can't see a 60% take up being sufficient for a contagious disease. It feels like another distraction from the herd immunity approach, whilst continuing with it. I wish the government would be honest that they are sticking to that approach, like Sweden have been. Predictions are Stockholm will have herd immunity by end of May.
|
|