Landlord in Distress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    Yes, good epidemiology is difficult.
    Indeed. By its nature it is, if not a social science, then something of a hybrid which involves social science. No one who is not an epidemiologist should be expressing opinions on how a disease may spread. It is not just statistics. Of course statisticans and other scientists may understand what epidemiologists say better than the rest of us, but they should not hold themselves out as experts in epidemiology.

    We need to remember that politicians and civil servants are not typically scientists. They have learned other skills. When things get serious they have to listen carefully to experts. Populists like Trump can ignore warnings about global warming because there is little chance of a disaster tomorrow. It is different when the death toll starts mounting.

    Comment


      #47
      I've got to be honest, I've been very surprised at the governments willingness to listen to their experts.

      I had expected the PM to be far more "trumpy" than he has turned out to be so far.
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
        I had expected the PM to be far more "trumpy" than he has turned out to be so far.
        With Trump what you see is what you get. BJ has been putting on a great act for years to achieve his lifetime ambition of being PM. Now he's got there and faces an unprecedented crisis he knows he has to come across as statesmanlike. He also knows he needs to get it right as it is the government in power and not the government in waiting which will take the blame if things go wrong.

        Comment


          #49
          With 'experts' like ours you don't need enemies. Ignore what you can see happened in China and Italy and what the WHO and every other health expert says and deliberately allow it spread to create herd immunity. I'm glad BJ listened to popular opinion and reversed this policy.
          These are same experts who thought we'd all be dead from BSE and then allowed FMD and bovine TB to spread throughout the country before trying to control them. They don't exactly have a good track record. A mathematical model is only as good as good as the assumptions it's based on and they don't seem to realise these can be wrong.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Section20z View Post

            Then you ought to be able to calculate that 650,000 worldwide flu deaths would equate to 2000 pro rata for the UK
            I have tried calculating this and I do not get 2000.

            [650000 deaths]/[7.8 billion world population]*[66.44 million UK population] = 5537

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by MdeB View Post

              I have tried calculating this and I do not get 2000.

              [650000 deaths]/[7.8 billion world population]*[66.44 million UK population] = 5537
              Maybe you need a new calculator 😁 but either way you could get nowhere near the great conspiracy theorist's figure of way more than 20,000 annual UK flu deaths......

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Section20z View Post

                Maybe you need a new calculator 😁 but either way you could get nowhere near the great conspiracy theorist's figure of way more than 20,000 annual UK flu deaths......
                I think I already answered that - so no reason to go around in a circle. Dividing by the UK's % of the world population is irrelevant.

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Section20z View Post

                  Maybe you need a new calculator 😁 .
                  So where is my calculation wrong?

                  Even approximations show that the answer is not 2000:

                  (6.5*10^x)*(6.5*10^y)/(8*10^z) is approximately (42/8)*10^X is approximately 5*10^Y (i.e. the first digit of the answer is approximately 5, not 2).

                  Originally posted by Section20z View Post
                  but either way you could get nowhere near the ... figure of way more than 20,000 annual UK flu deaths
                  If you looked in the UK government report linked by Mr Dod you would see that there are figures for UK flu deaths for several consecutive years.
                  The average for the four complete years is approximately 21,000.
                  The average if the incomplete year is included is approximately 17,000.

                  So a figure of approximately 20,000 per year seems reasonable and supports Mr Dod's statement:


                  Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                  the UK's % of the world population is irrelevant.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Slog international special report, No 1 Nach dem Thomas Schaefer Selbstmord, beginnt die deutsche Politik über strengstens Quarantäne von COVID19 zu werden. Germany begins to look for pathway out of Lockdown 70 senior medics debunk 'killer virus' narrative A pattern of 'deadly' exaggeration re COVID19 revealed The finance minister of Hesse, Thomas Schaefer, committed suicide…

                    Comment


                      #55
                      So far this year (2020) there have been less deaths in the UK than in comparable previous years. In the week ending March 20th there were 0.6% more deaths than in the comparable week for the past 5 years (72 deaths) - however this is more than offset by the lower death rates the weeks before that.

                      In the meantime economic analyses are starting to show a cost per life-year saved by intervention (not including deaths caused by the intervention or by poverty and later NHS failure) at (the lowest estimate) £70,000 per quality adjusted life-year ranging up to £7 million per year of life saved. The reasonable mid estimates of around perhaps £500,000 per year are about 15 times greater than those used to exclude use of expensive experimental drugs in cancer patients.

                      Since landlords and owners of startup businesses, and those with savings for their old age, and the next generation, are going to bear the brunt of this scenario and the lions share of it, it is important to understand the numbers.

                      Written from my **self**-isolation.

                      Comment


                        #56
                        There have been fewer deaths so far this year than the average of the last 5 years - which is doubly significant as the population is aging each year.

                        Some of that will be because it's been a remarkably mild winter, some will be because the population is probably washing more and driving about less than normal and some is because people are not dying of Pneumonia triggered by covid 19 that might otherwise have been triggered by flu or something else.

                        But you're putting a money value on human lives.
                        Which is a rational and sensible approach to something that is neither of those things.

                        Moreover, there is no comparison planet to see if what we're doing has stopped things being massively worse.
                        If the covid 19's death's graph for each country was as steep as the USA's, 10s of thousands more people would have died already.

                        A lot of them would be people who could have died of something else, even quite soon, but lots of them might not have.

                        The fact that almost every country has acted in broadly the same manner, including states not renowned for valuing individual human life, gives me some comfort that the modelling is right - left unchecked the number of deaths would be devastating.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          #57
                           

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            The fact that almost every country has acted in broadly the same manner, including states not renowned for valuing individual human life, gives me some comfort that the modelling is right - left unchecked the number of deaths would be devastating.
                            Not sure of that JP -- even the modellers are NOT assuming that lives will be saved by preventing folk from getting the virus forever. It will not be eradicated from the earth (as was small pox). It will just become an endemic bad type of "flu" which everyone will get eventually. So the only thing that might prevent those deaths is development of a vaccine (and to a very slight extent flattening of the health demand).

                            Putting a monetary value on human life is what health systems do all the time (and to a large extent should do, and have to do). It's not really a monetary value -- it is a resource value which could have been expended differently (and won't be) to save lives now or later. If one really cared about lives, one would send that same money to Africa in the form of eggs - which would save far more by a factor of 1000 at least.

                            And yes, what is certain is that the number of deaths is going to be devastating - that has not been avoided -- although perhaps fewer of those deaths will be from the virus in the very very short term.

                            It is also not so much a matter of the modelling being right or wrong -- it is a matter of one particular model (produced by a group that got it totally wrong on several previous occasions) -- which is not regarded as plausible or properly evidenced by many in the field, and which does not model the whole situation in any event (only immediate deaths).

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                              The fact that almost every country has acted ...including states not renowned for valuing individual human life,
                              There are many side effects which are hard to model, apart from the weather. The Mullahs are using the opportunity to make bombs:

                              https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/74464264.cms

                              Comment


                                #60
                                The financial models for life (which I accept are necessary to support decision making) only go so far.

                                They rightly ascribe value to age and life expectancy, but if we're going to be objective, we need to factor in other things - which are far more difficult ethically.
                                Wealth, quality of life, fertility, genetic testing.

                                When the disease is absorbed into the norm, we can look back and see what we might have done, I guess.
                                At the moment, as few people as possible dying in the world seems a reasonable target - even if there is collateral economic and social damage.
                                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X