Scrutable

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:56 am

Have we made modelling and predicting stuff and planning seem harder than it than it actually was?

shpalman wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:37 pm

Largest COVID-19 contact tracing study to date finds children key to spread, evidence of superspreaders

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 7/691.full

It's from the end of September but I don't remember if we already saw it.

No positive contacts were identified for 70.7% of index cases for whom reliable contact-tracing data, including test results, were available
[/qupte]

Superspreading predominated, with 5% of infected individuals accounting for 80% of cases.

These suggest that there's nothing further that a majority of people can do to help as they already are not going to pass it on to anyone.

What would now be really useful is some idea of what makes a person a superspreader - is it a characteristic of them (e.g. their immune response), their behaviour (e.g. doing a job which requires contact with lots of people), or something else (e.g. how large a dose of the virus they were exposed to)?

The calculator introduces a new concept, the microCOVID. One microCOVID is a one-in-a-million chance of getting COVID.

An activity that’s 20,000 microCOVIDs is very unsafe, as you have a 2% risk of getting COVID every time you do it. An activity that’s 20 microCOVIDs is relatively safe, as you could do it every week for a year and still have only about a 0.1% chance of getting COVID.

jaap wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:46 am

Today I found the microCOVID Project, which is a neat calculator for estimating the risk of catching it from various routine activities.

The calculator introduces a new concept, the microCOVID. One microCOVID is a one-in-a-million chance of getting COVID.

An activity that’s 20,000 microCOVIDs is very unsafe, as you have a 2% risk of getting COVID every time you do it. An activity that’s 20 microCOVIDs is relatively safe, as you could do it every week for a year and still have only about a 0.1% chance of getting COVID.

KAJ wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:14 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:54 pm

UK's number of deaths today is particularly high because of catching up with yesterday and the day before which were obviously low, the Guardian doesn't say.

Hmm. Sunday and Monday reported deaths are systematically lower than later days of the week, but today's high number isn't entirely a weekday effect. As the Grauniad says:

This is the largest daily figure for Covid deaths (defined as deaths within 28 days of testing positive) recorded so far on a single day.

The previous biggest high came on Wednesday last week, when 1,564 deaths were recorded.

... so the reported number today is higher than any previous Tuesday. Last Wednesday's was higher than any previous Wednesday.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:33 pm

... yeah... and today's number is higher than yesterday, higher than any previous Wednesday, and indeed higher than any previous day.

These few days probably are the peak (in reporting) though, next week should be better.

• Cases (by report date and by specimen date) declining at an increasing rate
• Hospital admissions declining, currently very slowly but rate of decline rapidly increasing
• Patients in hospital increasing (doubling time = 46.2 days), but that rate decreasing
• Patients in mechanical ventilation beds increasing (doubling time = 28.9 days), but that rate decreasing
• Deaths by date of death, quite pure exponential growth (doubling time = 20.7 days)
• Deaths by date of publication, increasing (doubling time = 31.1 days) but that rate may be decreasing (visually, but very weak evidence)

... only one in four people reported compliance with self-isolation, with 15% going to work as normal.

Ministers are considering paying £500 to everyone in England who tests positive for Covid-19, in a dramatic overhaul of the self-isolation support scheme, the Guardian can reveal.

Further, according to Special Act for Prevention, Relief and Revitalization Measures for COVID-19which was enactedon 25 February 2020, for those assigned to home isolation, home quarantine, group isolation, or group quarantine, their employers shall provide disease prevention isolation leave during the isolation or quarantine period and may not treat them as absent without a reason, force them to take personal leave or other leaves, deduct attendance bonuses, dismiss them, or impose other unfavorable penaltieson them. The same shall apply to family members who take leave to care for isolated or quarantined individuals.Employers who violate the above shall be imposed on a fine of no less than NT$50,000(approximately US$ 1660) and no more than NT$1 million (approximately US$ 33,300) (Articles 3 and 16)

raven wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:15 pm

Well colour me surprised. Belay the rant from that post. Apparently, we do have fines for employers who ask people to work when they should be self-isolating. Introduced last September. So maybe the problem is not setting up adequate compensation.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:13 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:25 pm

This what Lombardy looks like with its R so high it will go from Orange to Red next week.



Currently at about 150 new cases per 100,000 per day.

Fontana is complaining that having to be a Red zone next week is an "unjust punishment" based on old numbers, which it might be, but it's true that cases are slowly trending upwards despite being an Orange zone so something a bit stronger is needed to make daily cases trend down again.

As I said it doesn't make much difference to me what colour we are because I can always do what I need to do and I still can't do what I want to do so I'd rather we locked down harder and got on with vaccinating people.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:26 pm

For a slightly delayed celebration of the anniversary of this thread, I went back and re-read the first few pages. f.cking hell.

mikeh wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:30 am

GeenDienst wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:41 am

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:07 pm

Puts me in the mind of this:

The more research has been done, the less evil that one got, for a 5000 years ago kinda thing. The earlier idea that they were slaves has gone away, rather. But, yes, they didn't do a lot of voting and they did get stuff built.

Imagine telling London they're not going anywhere. Or indeed, imagine telling your favourite Brexit-voting small town they're not going anywhere. People will be making unnecessary journeys just to stick it to the authorities. Compliance with the state will at least mean people aren't moving about very much, the main aim of the lockdown (whether or not the consequences of that make it a good intervention). The analysis of that will be very useful information for next time. And there will be a next time.

I vaguely recall seeing a presentation at a conference years back that talked about restrictions of movements in mexico during the swine flu outbreak in 2009. Going to be vague on the details but in essence-
A little bit of lockdown was a bit effective, mid-range lockdown was the best (no sporting events, shut schools, but keep airports open though checks and extra stuff were put in place). Mass lockdown (e.g. shutting airports and other public transport) involved people saying "er... no, we're off" and heading off into the sunset anyway. Movements were actually more than the lesser-lockdown options.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:26 pm

For a slightly delayed celebration of the anniversary of this thread, I went back and re-read the first few pages. f.cking hell.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:04 pm

only 17% of people with symptoms are coming forward to get a test for fear a positive result could stop them from working

... only one in four people reported compliance with self-isolation, with 15% going to work as normal.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:38 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:04 pm

only 17% of people with symptoms are coming forward to get a test for fear a positive result could stop them from working

... only one in four people reported compliance with self-isolation, with 15% going to work as normal.

Of course the reaction to the idea of paying people £500 so that they can afford to not to have to work is lots of PEopLE WILL DEliBERaTELY CaTCh covid jUst to Get the MONey.

WHAT DO YOU WANT.

f.cks SAKE.

Note: an actual welfare state / sick pay system which works is not a valid choice because you f.ckers voted for the tories what did you expect.

A Treasury source suggested polling had shown that the most common reasons for failing to self-isolate were not money

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:14 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:13 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:25 pm

This what Lombardy looks like with its R so high it will go from Orange to Red next week.



Currently at about 150 new cases per 100,000 per day.

Fontana is complaining that having to be a Red zone next week is an "unjust punishment" based on old numbers, which it might be, but it's true that cases are slowly trending upwards despite being an Orange zone so something a bit stronger is needed to make daily cases trend down again.

As I said it doesn't make much difference to me what colour we are because I can always do what I need to do and I still can't do what I want to do so I'd rather we locked down harder and got on with vaccinating people.

The word now is that Lombardy screwed up its calculation of R...

Anyway, thanks to being a Red Zone it's apparently one of the lowest in Italy so we're allowed to be Orange soon.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:38 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:04 pm

only 17% of people with symptoms are coming forward to get a test for fear a positive result could stop them from working

... only one in four people reported compliance with self-isolation, with 15% going to work as normal.

Of course the reaction to the idea of paying people £500 so that they can afford to not to have to work is lots of PEopLE WILL DEliBERaTELY CaTCh covid jUst to Get the MONey.

WHAT DO YOU WANT.

f.cks SAKE.

Note: an actual welfare state / sick pay system which works is not a valid choice because you f.ckers voted for the tories what did you expect.

JQH wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 23, 2021 2:06 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:38 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:04 pm

only 17% of people with symptoms are coming forward to get a test for fear a positive result could stop them from working

Of course the reaction to the idea of paying people £500 so that they can afford to not to have to work is lots of PEopLE WILL DEliBERaTELY CaTCh covid jUst to Get the MONey.

WHAT DO YOU WANT.

f.cks SAKE.

Note: an actual welfare state / sick pay system which works is not a valid choice because you f.ckers voted for the tories what did you expect.

On this logic everybody would deliberately lose their jobs in order to get Universal Credit.

And if, rather than spouting gaslighting shite, they honestly believe that people are willing to catch a potentially lethal disease for £500 why are they not acting to alleviate such desperate poverty?