Coronavirus outbreak

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Gloves are not magic they don't kill the virus.
Hot water and soap will so just wash your hands as given in advice and if unsure then do it anyway.
Just keep it simple and wash your hands it really is the best way
It maybe simple but it's effective.
"there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." — HL Mencken

How the fark do you expect me to wash my hands in the middle of a food shop? There just aren't enough hand sinks available, especially given the small size of shop toilets means even those in the biggest food shops are now one/two-at-a-time else 2m distance isn't preserved.

Gloves are very much second-best but better than nothing because, used consistently, they mean the hand touching the stock isn't touching your face. Similar to scarves/buffs which will probably do fark-all against a sneeze, but prevents you touching your face unthinkingly.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Reading your post and wondering about the legal duty to deliver profit that you mentioned.
I'm aware that the USA tends to have more "predatory" business practices but wondered if things were similar on this side of the pond.

A quick Google led me to this interesting article:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/01/07/companies-do-not-have-a-legal-duty-to-maximise-profit-or-to-avoid-tax/
Indeed. I'm well aware of what the current Companies Act and its predecessors said because I've been part of three social enterprises which have had to subvert that clause deliberately by stating at the outset that we consider member benefit to include primarily non-financial matters and long-term views.

As that blog article notes, it's not an absolute duty, but I don't see a solid defence in those clauses against an accusation of not maximising member benefit if an MD obeyed the PM's request when the shareholders wanted the business to stay open until ordered otherwise. In that situation, (1)(f) is clearly not a defence, (b) to (e) are debatable and we'll see whether (a) would have been a solid defence when we see what the long-term consequences are for Wetherspoons and Sports Direct having tried to stay open, but I'd bet they'll suffer no obvious consequences.
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
Another thought experiment. There is enough antibody tests to test only one person in every household in the UK before the end of wave-1. Who in your household do you test? The most vulnerable one? The most economically active? The healthiest? The one that goes outside most under current guidelines?
 
Lots of people seem to think that there is something unique about Italy which has made it worse there.

There almost certainly isn't; the pandemic has progressed at the same rate everywhere, give or take, unless stringent social distancing, and/or test and trace measures are put in place.

Noting how long it took even the most stringent measures to impact the death rate (China), it seems near certain we will approach the same situation there is now in Spain, Italy and France.

As posted upthread by @RecordAceFromNew

View attachment 510351
I am interested in China's progression because they appear to be furthest into the latest outbreak.

@roubaixtuesday - you clearly have a far better understanding of how the graph works than me.

I take it the flattening of the gradient of the line is a positive sign because it indicates fewer new deaths.

Presumably, as it's the left scale that indicates deaths, the line can never go below flat because those people always remain dead.

Does the graph tell us anything else about the rate of infection in China and if it's fizzling out?
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
Does the graph tell us anything else about the rate of infection in China and if it's fizzling out?
It has fizzled out in China. However many believe there will be 2nd, 3rd, 4th outbreaks. Some models show a horrific 2nd outbreak in winter. Some others show continuous on/off on/off cycles until a vaccine or mutation or some deus ex machina.
 

YukonBoy

The Monch
Location
Inside my skull
Another thought experiment. There is enough antibody tests to test only one person in every household in the UK before the end of wave-1. Who in your household do you test? The most vulnerable one? The most economically active? The healthiest? The one that goes outside most under current guidelines?
The one that goes out the most is the most likely to come into contact with others outside that household. So they are the most likely to be exposed to it. Most economically active might just mean they earn the most it tells us nothing about their potential exposure to CoronaVirus. But generally the more your job pays the more likely it's not hands on and that you can work from home. The most vulnerable one by definition is the one most at risk, but also whom should be the most shielded.

Give that the most vulnerable one is being shielded? Any transmission of the virus to them must have come from one of the other two. The most likely being the one who goes out the most. The most economically active one is most likely still going out but still not the one exposed the most. So I'd test the most vulnerable one on the basis that if they have caught it, then it's likely the one who goes out the most brought it into the household. It's also likely they've also exposed the most economically most active one as well.

If they are doing sheilding then it might be that the one who goes out the most interacts with the most economically active who interacts with the most vulnerable. To provide that degree of seperation and shielding. A bit like how computer firewalls are setup.

So the test the most vulnerable.
 

Unkraut

Master of the Inane Comment
Location
Germany
I think the smart money currently, is that 1) lockdown, 2) contact tracing, and 3) border control are all needed to control the virus spreading in the population (keeping R0 under 1, technically speaking).
Thanks for the link - which I waded through! I don't envy the authorities having to decide when to start relaxing restrictions. You can't keep the economy under lockdown for ever, but you don't want to risk a new spread of the virus. This dilemma will get worse with time, but Trump is being premature with wanting to relax shortly - but it it not unreasonable for him to have this in mind at some point.

The latest here, where unfortunately it is too early to know if a very slight decrease in the rate of infections has any significance other than usual variation, is that the main policy is to test, isolate/treat those positive, trace those they have been in contact with and get them into quarantine. This has proved effective in S. Korea for example, but here the testing capacity is not sufficient, and so the other measures i.e. social distancing will have to remain in place. There is no serious hope of the curve flattening out for several days, depending on how the measures introduced prove effective or not.

The press briefing today emphasised that younger people most of whom get through unscathed should not take this for granted, as some have suffered and died at a young age without other existing conditions, if only in small numbers.

I was hoping to post some good news, but it's still too early.
 
It has fizzled out in China. However many believe there will be 2nd, 3rd, 4th outbreaks. Some models show a horrific 2nd outbreak in winter. Some others show continuous on/off on/off cycles until a vaccine or mutation or some deus ex machina.
Thanks.

Seems I thought no new deaths in China is better news than it really is.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
There are other countries on the graph not picked up by people out there that are highly relevant and not getting much comment - Belgium and Switzerland. The swiss think they are four days behind Italy. [...]
I listen to and watch daily news from those two and I think that's pretty much it. Policy is a bit fragmented in Switzerland because it's a confederation. Geneva has just unilaterally relaxed qualifications for obtaining unemployment pay because they don't want candidates visiting lots of potential employers - businesses are worried and saying some are struggling to get enough workers. I expect some sort of deal to be done about that soon, especially if more cantons follow Geneva. Maybe some sort of film-prison-visiting-room-style recruitment fairs for many interviews to be done at once with social distancing and sanitary regimes?

Belgium has just had bad news today with a leap up in deaths, amid controversies about what businesses are essential, PPE for workers in those businesses (workers at a pharmacy wholesale transport company walked out after a week of PPE being promised and not arriving) and grumbles about inconsistent application of the lockdown rules with some parks closed and others not. Hand gel sale is now restricted to people with prescriptions (not sure if it's for the gel itself, or another qualifying condition), with purchases logged against your passport record to prevent hoarding. I didn't quite follow whether that was because of short supply or an increase in home poisonings of newly-at-home children and desperate alcoholics, which were both mentioned - possibly the reporters were speculating.

But it could be worse. We could have Trump, who is still dismissing it as "a bad flu". The USA as a whole seems to be at the start of the curve, but I think NY and CA are faring worse....
 

Attachments

Last edited:

roubaixtuesday

Über Member
I am interested in China's progression because they appear to be furthest into the latest outbreak.

@roubaixtuesday - you clearly have a far better understanding of how the graph works than me.

I take it the flattening of the gradient of the line is a positive sign because it indicates fewer new deaths.

Presumably, as it's the left scale that indicates deaths, the line can never go below flat because those people always remain dead.

Does the graph tell us anything else about the rate of infection in China and if it's fizzling out?
OK, so first a caveat, I'm not an epidemiologist, merely an engineer, so these are personal views only.

1. Take great care not to over interpret. The data are subject to ask sorts of unknown bias eg different countries may use different rules whether or not to test and how to attribute deaths.

2. The reason for using a logarithmic plot is that it gives a straight line if growth is exponential. All it really tells you then is whether the rate is exponential, and how exponential rates vary from country to country.

3. Flattening out indicates that growth is no longer exponential. That means your control measures have had some effect.

4. It's probably the wrong way to judge if it has "fizzled out". For that, I'd suggest plotting daily deaths. If that's on a consistent downward trend, you're over the worst. And yes, the line can never go down.

5. Deaths are probably more reliable than cases. The latter is very, very strongly biased by testing policy.

6. It takes a few weeks from imposition for controls to clearly show in mortality data.

Conclusions I'd draw (but see caveat above):

1. The virus behaves similarly in all countries:
without controls, it doubles every 3 days or so.
2. We're on track to follow Italy at present.
3. China and Korea have, with different strategies, controlled it effectively

Policy conclusions (personal view): Stringent social distancing now, stringent test and trace once under control until vaccine developed.
 

YukonBoy

The Monch
Location
Inside my skull
Another thought experiment. There is enough antibody tests to test only one person in every household in the UK before the end of wave-1. Who in your household do you test? The most vulnerable one? The most economically active? The healthiest? The one that goes outside most under current guidelines?
To add a bit further thought.

If the vulnerable person comes back positive for the anti bodies it may mean that their sheilding can be relaxed as they should have some immunity now. But if it comes back negative then the other two will realise they need to keep shielding the vulnerable person and that what they are doing is working. If you test either of the others and they come back positive. Then they might get a bit lax about taking social distance and hygiene precautions which may lead to the virus being brought on hands into the household. The I'm now immune and can't infect them thinking. Vulnerable person gets infected. Outcome unknown. If you test the one who goes out the most and they come back negative. They may think this social distancing thing isn't necessary and get lax. The economically active person may also come to the same conclusion. Again virus brought into household, vulnerable member gets it. Outcome unknown.

It's best to let the ones who are shielding think they could still be infected at any point and therefore take precautions to protect the vulnerable.
 
Last edited:

kingrollo

Veteran
What if it was all ordered and paid for 6 weeks ago and it's just become available. Granted it's not essential but I would think that many companies don't have storage for large numbers of units?
There's also a risk that in the current situation they may go out of business before fitting and thus monies paid could be lost :sad:
So what ? - you either abide by the guidelines or break them. People need to stop inventing little sub clauses "I'll just do......."
 
Top Bottom