[Cyberyeti]

Heard an interesting interview with a Conservative MP whose constituency is just out of Leicester.

Leicester has the first local lockdown in the UK, it's a city of a little over 300K, which has had 7-10% of the recent new coronavirus cases in the UK.

He said that he had reported some of the garment factories there for continuing to work through the lockdown, and that this might well be where the cases were coming from. The garment factories are almost completely within the large south asian population of Leicester.

Racism or a justified comment ? I have no idea.

[thepossum]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-30, 04:37, said:

Racism or a justified comment ? I have no idea.

Whatever it is, it is probably factual but also concerning. I see the same issue everywhere (including here in Australia but Leicester is close to my childhood home in England) with serious risks of vulnerable communities, socioeconomic inequality, the nature of their work, their need to work, scapegoating of communities and cultures by the more privileged in different countries. It's a risk everywhere and something we all need to be wary of, especially thinking of what has happened in history

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-30, 04:37, said:

He said that he had reported some of the garment factories there for continuing to work through the lockdown, and that this might well be where the cases were coming from. The garment factories are almost completely within the large south asian population of Leicester.

Racism or a justified comment ? I have no idea.

The reporting I have seen says that the outbreak started in the food processing sector and then spread through the garment factories. It seems like a bit of a stretch for someone pointing this out to get an accusation of racism hung out in the air.

[awm]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-30, 08:24, said:

The reporting I have seen says that the outbreak started in the food processing sector and then spread through the garment factories. It seems like a bit of a stretch for someone pointing this out to get an accusation of racism hung out in the air.

While that may be true, I watched a BBC story about the high rate of cases in Leicester today, and the expert they brought in blamed (among other things) "ethnic diversity."

[Cyberyeti]

awm, on 2020-June-30, 12:01, said:

While that may be true, I watched a BBC story about the high rate of cases in Leicester today, and the expert they brought in blamed (among other things) "ethnic diversity."

This actually is a known issue, the South Asian communities are much more likely to have 3 or 4 generations in one house which is bad if somebody gets it.

[awm]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-30, 12:03, said:

This actually is a known issue, the South Asian communities are much more likely to have 3 or 4 generations in one house which is bad if somebody gets it.

Oh, he mentioned that too. I think the three factors he named were "multi-generational households, poverty, and ethnic diversity." All of which are probably highly correlated with race?

[PassedOut]

How Bad is America’s Coronavirus Surge? Really, Really Bad.

Quote

Two weeks ago, on the 15th of June, America had about 20,000 Coronavirus cases. Today, two weeks later, it has 45,000. America’s number of Coronavirus cases has more than doubled in the last two weeks.

Now, that would be one thing if we were talking about a virus in the initial stages, starting from a low base. But we are not. When America had 20,000 Corona cases two weeks ago, that was already the highest number in the world. Today, when it has 45,000, that’s still the highest number in the world.

So we’re not talking about sudden, explosive growth from a low base at the beginning of a pandemic. We’re talking now, about something very different, and far worse, happening in America.
We’re talking about a pandemic going viral.

If you want to talk like an adult — not one of those Trumpist American Idiots who thinks wearing a mask is an affront to free-dumb — then the simple fact is this: Coronavirus is now going viral in America.
That is what it means when numbers have doubled in just two weeks.

...

America is the only nation in the world so far as I can see, with maybe the exception of totally failed and destroyed states, that still has no national strategy to defeat a lethal pandemic. So what do you expect the pandemic to do? It’s beating America. Doubling. Going viral now.

Add to that the bizarre fact that…America had time to prepare. The virus first struck China and Asia. Then it spread to Europe. It didn’t hit America for months. In February, Corona was surging in Italy. It didn’t do so in America until the end of March. In other words, America had almost two months to prepare for the imminent arrival of the deadliest pandemic of modern times.

Perhaps a vaccine will come to the rescue sooner rather than later. In any case, the US fiasco illustrates the importance of voting responsibly.

[Cyberyeti]

PassedOut, on 2020-July-01, 09:48, said:

How Bad is America’s Coronavirus Surge? Really, Really Bad.


Perhaps a vaccine will come to the rescue sooner rather than later. In any case, the US fiasco illustrates the importance of voting responsibly.

Meanwhile the US has bought up the world's supply of remdesivir at $3K a patient.

The UK will use an old steroid Dexamethasone which is apparently at least as effective, and costs £5. Does Trump have shares in Gilead or is it run by a donor ?

[y66]

Martin Wolf at FT:

Quote

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook Update for June is not a cheerful document. Yet it does contain a cheerful point: the second quarter of 2020 should be the nadir of the Covid-19 economic crisis. If so, the challenge is to produce the best possible recovery.

The downgrade of the IMF’s forecasts since April is large, with global growth forecast at minus 4.9 per cent this year, down from minus 3 per cent in April. Next year’s growth is forecast to be 5.4 per cent. Global output is, as a result, expected slightly to exceed 2019 levels in 2021. Yet, in the fourth quarter of 2021, the gross domestic product of high-income countries would still be below levels in the first quarter of 2019. Output would also be some 5 per cent below levels implied by pre-Covid-19 growth trends.

We have been living through what the Bank for International Settlements in its latest annual report, calls a “global sudden stop”. The International Labour Organization states that, globally, the decline in work hours in the second quarter is likely to be equivalent to the loss of more than 300m full-time jobs.

The IMF rightly stresses these uncertainties: the duration of the pandemic and additional national or local lockdowns; the extent of voluntary social distancing; the severity of new safety regulations; the ability of displaced workers to secure employment; the longer-term impact of business closures and unemployment; the extent of reconfigurations of supply chains; the likely damage to financial intermediation; and the extent of further dislocations of financial markets.

The policy response has correctly been on an unprecedented scale for peacetime. The IMF forecasts that government debt will rise by 19 percentage points, relative to GDP, this year. Central bank’s policies have been no less astounding. The support by the fiscal and monetary authorities is also revolutionary in nature. Governments have emerged as insurers of last resort. Central banks have gone far beyond responsibility for banking. Where needed, they have taken responsibility for the entire financial system. Indeed, with its interventions, including swap arrangements with other central banks, the US Federal Reserve has taken responsibility for much of the global financial system.

Desperate times dictate desperate measures. Under the management of Agustín Carstens, former head of the Mexican central bank, the BIS rightly endorses the actions of central banks. Its report explains that central banks have two objectives: “to prevent long-lasting damage to the economy by ensuring that the financial system continues to function” and “to restore confidence and shore up private expenditures”.

This is not the end of massive interventions. It may not even be the end of their beginning. Huge uncertainties lie ahead. But, as Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, has recently noted, quoting Abraham Lincoln, “The best way to predict your future is to create it”.

So how should we create the future we should want, one in which there is the least possible damage and the strongest feasible recovery into an economically sustainable future? That is the task leaders should now be approaching.

For the immediate future, the important challenge remains to minimise the damage to health and the economy done by Covid-19. To achieve this, strong co-operation remains essential.

This will be particularly important for emerging and developing countries, who still need substantial help. The IMF has already agreed programmes to help 72 countries in two months. Yet, despite the improvement in financial markets, debt relief and additional official support will be required in the months and, almost certainly, years ahead.

As lockdowns end and economies recover, it will also be essential to shift policies towards promoting recovery and vital to avoid the mistake of the period after the 2008 financial crisis, by switching too soon from support towards fiscal consolidation and monetary tightening. Continued aggressive fiscal and monetary policy will be needed to bring idle resources back into use and shift economies towards new activities.

The new economy into which we emerge will — and should — be different from the old one. It will need to take advantage of today’s technological revolution towards virtual and away from constant physical interaction. It will also need to provide the people who have been most hard hit with a better future. It will need to accelerate the shift towards a more sustainable economy.

By sustaining demand, policymakers can make such shifts far easier. Yes, there are some risks consequent upon doing this. But they are far smaller than the political and economic outcome of another round of austerity borne by the beneficiaries of public spending. This time must be different.

Above all, government is back, as is a desire for competence. Anti-government politicians have been able to turn their own failures into an argument: who would trust a government run like this? But those with eyes can see that it does not have to be like this. The contrasts between Angela Merkel’s Germany and Donald Trump’s US or Boris Johnson’s UK are just too glaring.

Maybe this disaster will bring one benefit: we will find not just that government is back, but that the demand for sensible government run by competent people is back. That would not make such a calamity worth having. But one should never let a crisis go to waste. Human beings can learn from painful experiences. Let us do so.

[PassedOut]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-01, 10:49, said:

Meanwhile the US has bought up the world's supply of remdesivir at $3K a patient.

The UK will use an old steroid Dexamethasone which is apparently at least as effective, and costs £5. Does Trump have shares in Gilead or is it run by a donor ?

With Trump and crew, it's hard to separate the stupidity from the corruption.

[johnu]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-01, 10:49, said:

Meanwhile the US has bought up the world's supply of remdesivir at $3K a patient.

The UK will use an old steroid Dexamethasone which is apparently at least as effective, and costs £5. Does Trump have shares in Gilead or is it run by a donor ?

I'm sure the Manchurian President will claim he has no clue who made that deal. But rather than let those doses go to waste, he is intentionally doing his best to impede efforts by health professionals to stop the spread of cases in the US so that the US will get full value from the purchase.

Does anybody know anybody who is in the market for tens of millions of doses of hydroxychloroquine? Available at a yuuge discount.

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2020-July-01, 15:45, said:

I'm sure the Manchurian President will claim he has no clue who made that deal. But rather than let those doses go to waste, he is intentionally doing his best to impede efforts by health professionals to stop the spread of cases in the US so that the US will get full value from the purchase.

Does anybody know anybody who is in the market for tens of millions of doses of hydroxychloroquine? Available at a yuuge discount.

At least hydroxychloroquine is cents per tablet.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-01, 10:49, said:

Meanwhile the US has bought up the world's supply of remdesivir at $3K a patient.

The UK will use an old steroid Dexamethasone which is apparently at least as effective, and costs £5. Does Trump have shares in Gilead or is it run by a donor ?

This comment is wrong. Dexamethasone is only useful in specific circumstances (already on oxygen/ventilator); in the study claiming benefit for remdesivir, it was given much earlier/for patients with milder symptoms.

I think the US did the right (if selfish) thing here.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-July-02, 06:51, said:

This comment is wrong. Dexamethasone is only useful in specific circumstances (already on oxygen/ventilator); in the study claiming benefit for remdesivir, it was given much earlier/for patients with milder symptoms.

I think the US did the right (if selfish) thing here.

The UK apparently stocked up on remdesivir earlier so has enough for the moment.

It seems that remdesivir was mainly tested on patients on oxygen, and while it didn't seem to increase the survival rate by a huge margin, it reduced the time on oxygen and hence the recovery time also.

[cherdano]

Anyone want to make a bet when pubs will get closed again in large parts of England? No matter how long I look at https://coronavirus-...a.gov.uk/deaths, it doesn't scream "OPEN THE PUBS" to me...

[PassedOut]

Although the EU is clearly right to ban travel from the US, Brazil, and Russia, my youngest son hasn't been able to be with his fiancée for several months now. She lives and works in Berlin and they have a place there. Last year he had been able to be in Berlin three of every eight weeks. For a time it looked like things might loosen up at the beginning of July, but that's not happening.

He's looking at meeting her in a responsible country where they could quarantine together for a couple of weeks and then be eligible to travel to Berlin. But that means finding a safe way to travel to meet her.

I'm really irritated with the folks who voted to put an irresponsible moron in the White House. That it would turn out badly should not be a surprise.

[Zelandakh]

This graph seems to tell an interesting story. Italy gets hit first and with little information to go on it takes them a little over a month to get the right measures in place to start bringing the cases down (0-100) but thereafter it comes under control. Germany gets hit next and, learning lessons from Italy, the curve follows a similar shape but flatter (0-75) with the peak coming a week or so earlier. The US, starting a few days after Germany, has an initial phase almost identical to Italy (also 0-100), then the measures taken are half-hearted, reducing cases but not really bringing it under control, and now the gradient seems to indicate a second uncontrolled phase like the beginning (60-140 and rising). It seems hard to look at this and see anything but incompetence, like a diagram from a text book "How (not) to handle a pandemic".

Now the graph I really want to see, and one that as far as I know noone is producing, is "Deaths per million per country 2020 (all causes) minus deaths per million per country 2019 (all causes) - rolling 7 day average". This is the most difficult statistic to massage and weeds out the seemingly common practice of putting a death down to some other cause than Covid-19 since there was no confirmed positive test before death. Hopefully this statistic will emerge at some stage so that the full extent of the effects of different management styles can fully be appreciated.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2020-July-04, 06:20, said:

Now the graph I really want to see, and one that as far as I know noone is producing, is "Deaths per million per country 2020 (all causes) minus deaths per million per country 2019 (all causes) - rolling 7 day average". This is the most difficult statistic to massage and weeds out the seemingly common practice of putting a death down to some other cause than Covid-19 since there was no confirmed positive test before death. Hopefully this statistic will emerge at some stage so that the full extent of the effects of different management styles can fully be appreciated.

Yes, this is informative, BUT it doesn't tell the whole story. We will only know the exact effects a year or two from now and it's prone to confounding. Many of the care home deaths were people with dementia or life limiting illnesses who would likely have died in the next two years anyway. There will also probably be some coronavirus deaths in the next couple of years.

Actually Belgium calculated their deaths by this method which is why they looked bad on the figures.

Spain blatantly manipulated theirs, we'd have had 1/10 of the daily figure we had if following their lead at the point they changed it.

[o__nikos]

Referring to my initial question "if there are bridge clubs operating today" (besides three bridge clubs in Athens, Greece), I read in your answers that they have also reopened in Switzerland.

Are there, other bridge clubs operating normally now, worldwide?

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2020-July-04, 06:20, said:

This graph seems to tell an interesting story. Italy gets hit first and with little information to go on it takes them a little over a month to get the right measures in place to start bringing the cases down (0-100) but thereafter it comes under control. Germany gets hit next and, learning lessons from Italy, the curve follows a similar shape but flatter (0-75) with the peak coming a week or so earlier.

That's what makes the reaction of the UK so frustrating. We were two weeks behind Italy. A few days behind France and Spain. We had time to learn from Italy and Germany, and we had more time than other big (Western) European countries to learn from Wuhan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. And a little bit less objectively, late February/early March I also thought the UK had many more advantages:
- Despite Brexit and class divide etc. etc., I think it's still a high-trust society, which would make it easier to get everyone to join in behaviour that helps protect everyone else. (UK is world-beating at peer pressure.)
- It's a younger population than other big European countries.
- While the NHS is underfunded, having everything financed directly by the state would make it is easier to target resources (e.g. to test where it makes the biggest difference to transmission, say care home workers).
- For all of the current government's fault, it is genuinely open to scientific and expert input. And there is no shortage of expertise on public health and epidemiology in Britain.

So how did it all go so terribly wrong? Well, I don't have time to write a novel now.

Quote

Now the graph I really want to see, and one that as far as I know noone is producing, is "Deaths per million per country 2020 (all causes) minus deaths per million per country 2019 (all causes) - rolling 7 day average".

It's not for lack of trying - google excess mortality. Some countries are astonishingly bad at publishing number of deaths in timely manner. Other are astonishingly bad at publishing reliable numbers at all.
See https://ourworldinda...mortality-covid for a bit of a survey.
The UK is rather good at it btw - use ONS to google for them.
The CDC is trying to publish such graphs for the US, but look at their methodology section to see how much fudging they have to do to get reasonable guesses: https://www.cdc.gov/...cess_deaths.htm

Also, here is a BBC article based on an Oxford study: https://www.bbc.com/...health-53279391