Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

@ obvert/Warspite1/Encircled (or other Brits)

Have you lot found a website that provides granular detail across the UK? I'm talking county by county / country by country (including Wales too of course) for Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland? I don't know how to get that stuff from the Worldometers or Covid Tracking Project sites-my 'go to' sites for daily national and state information.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IN international diplomatic terms, China is just gong to walk away scott free.

Alfred

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

@ obvert/Warspite1/Encircled (or other Brits)

Have you lot found a website that provides granular detail across the UK? I'm talking county by county / country by country (including Wales too of course) for Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland? I don't know how to get that stuff from the Worldometers or Covid Tracking Project sites-my 'go to' sites for daily national and state information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Chickenboy is right. There are numerous obstacles to testing. When the CDC relinquished exclusive testing in the US and the private and university labs started to step up we set up expensive tents and outdoor heaters and paid a bunch of staff to gown up in face masks, and N-95 masks to collect the specimens...and then we ran out of viral transport media...and then when, after all effort we finally got the specimens to Quest it took 6-7 days to get a result...and then we had only 10% positive after selecting for the sickest appearing patients.

And yet, more tests are what will get the country open again according to this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/17/us/coronavirus-testing-states.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

As some governors consider easing social distancing restrictions, new estimates by researchers at Harvard University suggest that the United States cannot safely reopen unless it conducts more than three times the number of coronavirus tests it is currently administering over the next month.

An average of 146,000 people per day have been tested for the coronavirus nationally so far this month, according to the COVID Tracking Project, which on Friday reported 3.6 million total tests across the country. To reopen the United States by mid-May, the number of daily tests performed between now and then should be 500,000 to 700,000, according to the Harvard estimates.

That level of testing is necessary to identify the majority of people who are infected and isolate them from people who are healthy, according to the researchers. About 20 percent of those tested so far were positive for the virus, a rate that the researchers say is too high.

“If you have a very high positive rate, it means that there are probably a good number of people out there who have the disease who you haven’t tested,” said Ashish Jha, the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “You want to drive the positive rate down, because the fundamental element of keeping our economy open is making sure you’re identifying as many infected people as possible and isolating them.”

The authors are advocating additional testing that may be necessary to identify positive people that are sick and their contacts. This is reasonable, based upon the testing rubric that most states have-the 'flow chart' testing process I provided as an example. This is not a call to random test the populace to identify asymptomatics.

There are some states above 20% attack rate: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Illinois, Connecticut and Michigan. Louisiana is below that threshold of late. New York's and New Jersey's big numbers skew the national averages because of their outsized impact (~40% and nearly 50%(!) ARs respectively). The other states have known niduses of infection in cities that are well known. Governors of these states will probably have to take this into account and these states may have to remain under additional scrutiny until their attack rate drops. New York's numbers are improving and the attack rate is off by some 10% from its highs a couple weeks ago.

Some states at or near this 20% rate may need to step up their game a bit in terms of testing numbers. Georgia's tests / M looks a little meager compared to the others with an attack rate circa 20%.

But for the other big population states: California, Texas and Florida that are well below this 20% attack rate threshold, the governors should have some freedom to begin opening up the economies and getting people back to work. The granularity of this is important and I don't think the national averages have much bearing on state by state reopenings. The exceptions above (the few states >20%) may have to 'test out' of mitigation strategies. But the other 42 states can reasonably start getting things moving again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

Popping back in here guys. I just heard or read a couple days ago another reference to the Covid 19 virus originating in a Chinese lab rather than the wet market in Wuhan.
Any of you shed light or other stories on this?

Our lack of understanding about this virus and its apparent slipperiness are making things scary. We don't know very much about it still. Lets hope that changes asap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive


... I didn't realise that Professor Ferguson had got it so wrong with BSE/CJD - that was definitely a major goof-up on his part.

He has a well established track record of getting it seriously wrong, a fact overlooked by unqualified journalists who just accept any "expert's" mo9delling without looking at the assumptions underpinning any model.

1. 2005, Ferguson claimed bird flu could claim up to 200 million. Result was 282 world wide deaths between 2003 and 2009.

2. 2009, the claim was swine flu had a fatality rate of 0.3 to 1.5%. He/Imperial College settled for a 0.4% rate which fed into a UK government estimate of 65,000 UK deaths. Actual result was 457 UK deaths, a rate of 0.026% 9f those infected.

3. 2001, their modelling of foot and mouth disease led to UK government policy which cost the UK 10 billion pounds. The modelling was strongly criticised as being severely flawed by Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University.

4. 2002, their modelling expected 50 to 50,000 people dying from mad cow disease, increasing to 150,000 if there was also a sheep epidemic. Result is 177 UK deaths.

5. Nor is their current COVID-19 modelling far from being generally accepted as being accurate. Besides the Oxford study which produces quite different results, Professor John Ioamidis of Stanford University has commented that some of the major assumptions and estimated seem to be substantially inflated.

None of this is surprising when it is realised (as disclosed by Ferguson on 22 March 2020) that their model is based on undocumented 13 year old computer code written for an influenza pandemic, not a coronavirus pandemic. IOW the model is not available for peer review nor does it fully incorporate the specific characteristics of the current pandemic.

Alfred

GIGO by any other name?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IN international diplomatic terms, China is just gong to walk away scott free.

Alfred

warspite1

Correct. There will be a lot of talk, but ultimately nothing will happen. A realignment of our dealings with China? Well lets see what happens about Huawei......

• extending to the Dalai Lama an invitation to meet the Queen, the PM or address the Commons/Lords
  
• ditching the One China policy by recognising Taiwan as a separate state and establishing a full service embassy in Taipei
  
• lean on the FA to extend an invitation to Taiwan's governing football authority to play a friendly in the UK. For extra piquancy, send a team to Taiwan
  

• limiting or outright banning Chinese airline flights to the UK
  
• passing new foreign investment legislation which basically limits foreign individuals/corporations to the same investment conditions as imposed in their home country. As China limits foreign corporations to at most a 49% stake in a joint venture, the same 49% limit would now apply to Chinese individuals/corporations investing in the UK. Existing ventures would have to sell down to this level. Furthermore, as China does not allow foreigners to buy any land, the same would now apply to Chinese owning real estate in the UK with divestment of existing property holdings
  
• ban the importation and sale of any product produced by an entity associated with human rights abuses. That would stop Huawei stone cold dead due to its role in the current Uigher program
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake


... What we need is a major Western leader who has been droning on about unfair Chinese trade practices for 10 years. Any ideas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IN international diplomatic terms, China is just gong to walk away scott free.

Alfred

warspite1

Correct. There will be a lot of talk, but ultimately nothing will happen. A realignment of our dealings with China? Well lets see what happens about Huawei......

Huawei would be a good one to tip one's toe into the water. Seeing that when it was given approval the government went to great lengths to assure the public that Huawei would be allowed only limited participation and none into critical areas. So by such logic, it being cut out should impose limited problems.

There are many things which the UK government could do which directly have limited adverse economic consequences. Actions such as:

• extending to the Dalai Lama an invitation to meet the Queen, the PM or address the Commons/Lords
  
• ditching the One China policy by recognising Taiwan as a separate state and establishing a full service embassy in Taipei
  
• lean on the FA to extend an invitation to Taiwan's governing football authority to play a friendly in the UK. For extra piquancy, send a team to Taiwan
  

would infuriate President XI and undoubtedly lead to retaliation.

More dangerous, from a direct economic consequences perspective would be actions such as

• limiting or outright banning Chinese airline flights to the UK
  
• passing new foreign investment legislation which basically limits foreign individuals/corporations to the same investment conditions as imposed in their home country. As China limits foreign corporations to at most a 49% stake in a joint venture, the same 49% limit would now apply to Chinese individuals/corporations investing in the UK. Existing ventures would have to sell down to this level. Furthermore, as China does not allow foreigners to buy any land, the same would now apply to Chinese owning real estate in the UK with divestment of existing property holdings
  
• ban the importation and sale of any product produced by an entity associated with human rights abuses. That would stop Huawei stone cold dead due to its role in the current Uigher program
  

Of course you would then have to weather the Chinese retort.

For the USA, the stakes would be even higher because there are many more American interests which can be targeted by China. For example, China could unleash North Korea from any restraints on both its nuclear program and international sanctions.

The fact is that whilst one would wish to see firm action taken, knowing that there would be costs involved, it isn't that easy for Western leaders, who are both answerable at the ballot box and constant attack from their political opponents, to stay the course now for a better future.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

But as I read Chickenboy, testing isn't the answer at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


That is one reason why a boycott of Chinese goods at a personal level can help, especially if here was also a letter writing campaign to the companies selling said products stating why they did not purchase the product - the reason was that it was made in China. Of course, that would depend upon how many people wold get involved in the boycott.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Another report which I think Cap Mandrake will appreciate.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/478656/

Actually this should be read by all those posters so quick to criticise western political leaders for apparently not acting promptly to equip health professionals with the necessary PPE.

The above report is dated 6 April 2020 from the Asian Times.  It is based on data published by China's national customs authority.  The key points made are:

1.  Between 24 Jan and 29 Feb 2020, China imported 2.5 billion health care items.  These items included visors, masks, gloves and ventilators.  That is an awful lot of equipment to import considering just how much domestic production of the same equipment exists in China.

2.  Overseas Chinese companies totally unconnected with the health industry hoovered up all available equipment and sent it to China.  Two Australian examples (commented upon locally for a day then forgotten by the Australian media) are:

(a)  Greenland Group, a property developer, before the global pandemic was announced, bought and sent to China from Sydney, 3 million surgical masks, half a million pairs of gloves and large quantities of sanitizer and anti-bacterial wipes

(b)  Risland, a real estate firm, on 8 Feb 2020, shipped from Perth to Wuhan, 90 tons of medical supplies.  Documentation for this was kindly provided by the photos provided by Risland to local Chinese language papers


Back on page 160 in post #4776, Cap Mandrake mused that the tardiness of the WHO could be it trying to assuage Chinese feelings.  I would suggest that one possible motive (pretty certain there are others too) for China's actions was to buy time to hoover up world stocks of PPE before the world realised it needed the same PPE for its own needs.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

Popping back in here guys. I just heard or read a couple days ago another reference to the Covid 19 virus originating in a Chinese lab rather than the wet market in Wuhan.
Any of you shed light or other stories on this?

Our lack of understanding about this virus and its apparent slipperiness are making things scary. We don't know very much about it still. Lets hope that changes asap.

The reigning theory is that a lab worker had an oopsie while handling the virus and did not do a good job of cleaning up before going to the wet market across the street or next block over. Since the lab was working on viruses carried by bats and the wet market sold bats and other wild critters, it is unclear if the virus was already in the wet market product or if the worker spread it by handling all the carcasses on display.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Now for some light hearted humour.

Just came across a lexicon which redefines the meaning of certain words in the current COVID-19 environment.

Experts - People who may or may not be wrong

Globalisation - A word to describe the fact that we are all now residents of Wuhan

Grocery Shopping - A great day out

Hand Sanitiser - Lotion that is said to protect you from flu, cancer and vampires

Stampede - Three people running together at a local park

Travel Plans - Deciding whether your next trip will be to the kitchen, the lounge room, the laundry or the bathroom


Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

A total ban of Chinese imports would be a global economy-wrecker. It needs to be more gradual.

For example Foxcom, the contractual assembler of I-phones might begin phasing out Chinese plants. They are, after all, a Taiwanese company and no real friend of the Chicoms. Western governments should phase out purchases of Chinese PPE products. Cadillac wants to build cars in China for export BACK to the US? Don't buy them. NBA wants to operate in China? Don't watch the NBA. Hollywood wants to run their scripts by Beijing first? Don't watch the ****. Mao-mart wants to sell cheap Chinese crap that disintegrates in a stiff breeze...don't go there (this is already an easy choice)

US universities sucking on the Chinese tit with a quid pro quo of automatic allocation of 80% of the PhD STEM slots to Chinese students....cease all US government funding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

A total ban of Chinese imports would be a global economy-wrecker. It needs to be more gradual.

For example Foxcom, the contractual assembler of I-phones might begin phasing out Chinese plants. They are, after all, a Taiwanese company and no real friend of the Chicoms. Western governments should phase out purchases of Chinese PPE products. Cadillac wants to build cars in China for export BACK to the US? Don't buy them. NBA wants to operate in China? Don't watch the NBA. Hollywood wants to run their scripts by Beijing first? Don't watch the ****. Mao-mart wants to sell cheap Chinese crap that disintegrates in a stiff breeze...don't go there (this is already an easy choice)

US universities sucking on the Chinese tit with a quid pro quo of automatic allocation of 80% of the PhD STEM slots to Chinese students....cease all US government funding.

I was kind of thinking along the lines of enabling countries hit by the virus (i.e., all of them) that also happened to be victims of the Chicom 'debt diplomacy'...erm..."Belt and Road Initiative" construction projects to call force majeure on any outstanding loans. Man, it'd be worth the price of admission to see what the bond trading would be like on those quasi state-owned companies.

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't a lot of force majeure contract language contain specific provisions for epidemics?

ETA: Of course the downside, particularly for those bordering China, is that they can probably expect a 'visit' from the PLA if they did this.