Landlord in Distress

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

  • The Secret Landlord
    replied
    Focus on finding the guarantor. There are companies online who specialize in this.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    That's probably the rate of death from (as opposed to with) the virus in the UK right now. The big missing element in the whole thing is the denominator. You will notice that I said that this is probably (a guess) currently at around 3 million. The 0.1% (perhaps a little less) are dramatic, sad and horrible though.

    Folk at Oxford have speculated that perhaps 25 million have already been infected, but that is almost certainly way too high (as yet).

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    That does seem remarkably low - that's the mortality rate for Flu.
    And this does seem much worse than Flu, or are you factoring a vaccine into your thinking?

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    When you say a mortality rate of 0.1, do you mean of total population or people who get it?
    Both. They will converge to meaning the same thing approximately.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    When you say a mortality rate of 0.1, do you mean of total population or people who get it?

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by MdeB View Post
    That is true, but you cannot know the correct values to put in until after the event.
    2022 to get "the correct result" does not inform the current decisions.

    That is why there is peer review and the assumptions (consciously) made are stated.
    Agree with all your post MdeB except this last bit. We do know pretty clearly that the assumptions made so far (at the start, by the Imperial group) are definitely way off beam, at least for western democracies.

    Obviously we will know more in 2022, but we do not need to wait that long. The numbers sound high to those not used to looking at death statistics. The average mortality (across all ages and groups) after accounting for expected mortality is likely to be around 0.1% or perhaps a little less than that, and we are all likely to get it eventually regardless of any curve flattening. The modelling should have been done predominantly by economists and actuaries with a global view beyond disease, not epidemic modellers who got it badly wrong before (the teams involved did get it badly wrong before, but royw chose the wrong disease).

    I'll put my head on a block for the 2022 hind-view you want to predict (see below on guessing):

    a) Excess UK deaths as a direct result of the virus : 50,000
    b) Excess UK deaths as a result of suicide estimated over 5 years: 15,000
    c) Excess UK deaths as a result of economic deprivation est. over 15 years: 300,000
    d) Excess UK deaths as a result of failure of medical care due to illnesses other than the virus: 10,000

    My guess is that around 3 million people in the UK have been infected so far, with perhaps 95% of the population still to follow.

    The problem is that the age distribution of deaths in the last three categories will be much lower than those in the first category.
    Since mechanical ventilation only slightly reduces the death rate (perhaps by a third?) (a) will not change much by slowing the rate of spread unless an effective and proven-safe vaccine is developed in a short timescale.

    So we can get back here in 2022 and see how it worked out. I am guessing, but my guess is that the overall health outcome above will be far closer to the truth than the Imperial model guess (there are other models and academics who firmly disagree -- peer review is a mechanism of filtering, not a proof of correctness). We shall see....

    The "developing" world will be a different ballgame altogether.

    In terms of your last comment, so far as I am aware the Imperial group have not made all of their computer code and assumptions available in a form that allows their work to be replicated or tweaked, but I stand to be corrected.

    Leave a comment:


  • MdeB
    replied
    Originally posted by royw View Post

    Actually BSE was 1996.
    It was not.
    See Wikipedia or https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/oct/26/bse3 for example.

    1996 was the ban on British beef exports. BSE was recognised 1986.

    Originally posted by royw View Post
    How long ago is irrelevant, the point is they didn't learn.
    How long ago is absolutely relevant to making your argument credible or not.

    You wrote disparagingly about people who have spent most of their adult life (far longer than you, no doubt) learning, investigating, publishing under peer review, about spread of disease under different conditions so that when a threat arises we have some idea of how it might behave and how different actions might affect that behaviour, and decisions can be taken with some insight, not an uninformed "wet finger in the air":
    Originally posted by royw View Post
    With 'experts' like ours you don't need enemies.
    You then went on to say (my emphasis)
    Originally posted by royw View Post
    These are same experts who thought we'd all be dead from BSE
    "Same experts" means those who are advising now are those who were advising then.
    THAT makes "how long ago" relevant.



    Originally posted by royw View Post
    Mathematical models based on incorrect assumptions are always going to come up with incorrect results (bar the odd fluke).
    That is true, but you cannot know the correct values to put in until after the event.
    2022 to get "the correct result" does not inform the current decisions.

    That is why there is peer review and the assumptions (consciously) made are stated.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Why was a proven failure allowed to drive UK policy back into containment?   Sorry....I don't usually post this often in a 24-hour period, but Covid-Crash things are moving at such a pace now - fuelled by a heady mix of incompetence, subplot distraction and treasonous cunning - that without updating every feint and red…

    Leave a comment:


  • royw
    replied
    Originally posted by MdeB View Post

    Almost certainly not, given that they were in post 30+ years ago.
    Actually BSE was 1996. How long ago is irrelevant, the point is they didn't learn. Mathematical models based on incorrect assumptions are always going to come up with incorrect results (bar the odd fluke).

    Leave a comment:


  • MdeB
    replied
    Originally posted by royw View Post
    These are same experts who thought we'd all be dead from BSE ...
    Almost certainly not, given that they were in post 30+ years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Letting Agent - Finders fee - New Tenants
    by BeccyP
    Hello,
    New here so please forgive if I'm doing something wrong..

    We employed a Letting Agent to find us new tenants for a one off 'Finders Fee'...We shall then manage property ourselves.
    Letting Agent has found us new tenants - I'm due to meet and greet next week and hand over...
    09-08-2020, 00:33 AM
  • Reply to Does employment tribunal case affect credit/reference check
    by ash72
    It will not affect your credit file, but will affect your reference checks when your employer is asked to confirm your employment details, and salary this will then affect you, even if your employer does not provide the correct information your wage slip would either confirm or support your income.
    08-08-2020, 19:17 PM
  • Does employment tribunal case affect credit/reference check
    by Self sufficient
    Hi folks

    Perhaps nobody has ever asked that question because majority here perceptibly seems investors/businessmen. The question is that if someone who is relying currently to live in private rented properties whilst having a plan to buy his own home in future but currently fighting in...
    08-08-2020, 15:14 PM
  • Reply to Ccj
    by ChrisDennison
    Funny enough only the defendant receives a copy of the default judgment, the claimant normally doesn't. You can request it from the court though, if it's a claim issued via the CCBC or CCMCC just call them and they will email it to you. If it's a local county court hearing centre call them too and they'll...
    08-08-2020, 18:28 PM
  • Ccj
    by Perce
    Hello

    Does anybody know how long it takes to get judgement once you submit a request for judgement ?
    23-07-2020, 21:01 PM
  • Reply to Who Gives a Fig About The Council
    by ChrisDennison
    Maybe therein lies the problem, because different races certainly don't necessarily mean different people....
    08-08-2020, 18:22 PM
  • Who Gives a Fig About The Council
    by landlord-man
    Something which keeps cropping up which I don't for the life of me understand.

    Put into words by this recent quote on the Forum

    It grieves me to hear again and again and again where tenants with huge arrears are evicted solely with s21, local council not informed of arrears...
    05-08-2020, 14:55 PM
  • Reply to First time landlord making mistakes
    by ChrisDennison
    Well, central heating systems (district or local) don't normally mean tenants have no control over their heating. They will normally still have TRVs on their radiators and a heat meter which tracks usage....
    08-08-2020, 18:18 PM
  • First time landlord making mistakes
    by Bhups
    Hello,

    I'm a first time landlord who has make a few BIG mistakes and would like advise on what I can do to help me out.

    I've got a double story extension on the side of the property where the garage would normally be (semi-detached home).
    I've converted the side with...
    07-08-2020, 11:06 AM
  • Reply to Ccj
    by Perce
    The eviction company sent me just the Notice of Judgement Entered but should not they also send me the Judgement for Claimant and Defendant stating how much the tenant owes me ? I understand HCEO will need this piece of paper....
    08-08-2020, 18:15 PM
Working...
X