The bit I don't understand is the "flattening the curve" part.
Had to happen...https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/14/donald-trump-confirms-coronavirus-test-12398469/?ico=pushly-notifcation-small&utm_source=pushly
Quote from: Ru on March 14, 2020, 03:36:51 pmThe bit I don't understand is the "flattening the curve" part. There are three ways in which flattening the curve will decrease the total number of fatalities.1. Given a constant capacity to deliver critical care, a flatter curve will result in fewer fatalities as the critical cases will be spread out in time and more of them will actually receive critical care rather than dying at home as some of the earlier cases will have either recovered or died, freeing up the resource for later cases.2. Critical care capacity can be expanded, albeit slowly, so a flatter curve means a greater proportion further along in time when there is a higher capacity.3. Possibly most importantly: Given that vaccine development is likely to happen at some point in the future, the flatter the curve the greater proportion of the population will make it to the advent of the vaccine before falling ill.
I get that, but I'm skeptical that it can work in a healthcare system like the NHS which is pretty much at capacity before the outbreak starts.
Yeah just read that bed occupancy was already at 95% in December. Still 5% is worth more spread over time than it is at any one instant.
Offwidth I see no evidence for a 'U-turn' and no amount of you repeating it makes it any more true.
Just got an email saying all face to face teaching cancelled at Liverpool University. I suspect the rest will follow suit very soon. Not at all surprised. I've been working from home this week (as I suspect many other staff have) and the rumours have been floating around every time I talk to a colleague on Skype.
Font in the time of Coronavirus:
Quote from: eastside on March 14, 2020, 05:15:02 pmYeah just read that bed occupancy was already at 95% in December. Still 5% is worth more spread over time than it is at any one instant. We have, apparently, 4k ICU beds at 95% capacity, that's 200 free. Estimated 40m cases, so 4m people need ICU if 10% cases are critical. Flattening the curve isn't going to dint that number of people needing critical care. I appreciate that more beds can be added but it's still going to make little difference as the disparity is so great. I'm not saying there's no other reason to do it, just that the government is not being transparent in it's reasoning or modelling.
Quote from: eastside on March 14, 2020, 11:17:50 amFont in the time of Coronavirus: I was supposed to be heading to Bishop for the first 3 weeks of April . Now that's not happening I was thinking today about how reckless it would be to just drop everything and head to Font ASAP. The temptation is real.
I openly admit I was wrong there, however, I can't assess what is not public and its a real shame this advice wasn't released ages ago to recieve proper peer review.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-14/elderly-to-be-quarantined-for-four-months-in-wartime-style-mobilisation-to-combat-coronavirus/
It seems to my punter mind that in this circumstance you can break the population into two important distinct groups: 1. at high risk of becoming seriously ill. (age group 60+)2. at low risk of becoming seriously ill. (age group under 60)Assuming you want to save the maximum number of lives whilst aiming for the minimum economic impact, then wouldn't the most rational thing to do be to impose an extremely draconian isolation measure - enforced by martial law if necessary - on the group at high risk of becoming seriously ill. That would lower the spike of severely ill. And it's fortunate that the most vulnerable group are also economically the least productive (I'm guessing?), so enforcing isolation on this group is less economically damaging than it would be for isolation of age group 18-60. Allow the group at low risk of becoming seriously ill to continue to go about their daily business.Holes in that reasoning?
.... The logic remains the same that you can divide the population into two quite distinct groups: 1. at high risk of serious illness 2. at low risk of serious illness. And given the two goals are to 1.minimise fatalities (and burden on health service) and 2.minimise economic damage..to achieve maximum effect in both goals, you could (and should?) treat the two groups very differently. I'm open to why that's wrong.
Does anyone know any decent epidemiology forums, because I’ve got some really urgent questions about AnCap protocols...
Have you considered applying for that job Cummings advertised Pete?
Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, has set the tone for a radical shake-up of Whitehall by inviting “data scientists, project managers, policy experts and assorted weirdos” to apply for Downing Street jobs.In perhaps the most unusual government job advert ever seen, Mr Cummings invites applications from “true wild cards, artists, people who never went to university and fought their way out of an appalling hell hole”.He added: “If you want to figure out what characters around Putin might do, or how international criminal gangs might exploit holes in our border security, you don’t want more Oxbridge English graduates who chat about Lacan at dinner parties with TV producers and spread fake news about fake news.”In exchange, he offers the prospect of long hours and zero job security: “I’ll bin you within weeks if you don’t fit — don’t complain later because I made it clear now,” he wrote on his own personal blog.Mr Cummings wants to transform Whitehall, synonymous with cautious officialdom, into a dynamic organisation informed by science, data analysis and maverick freethinkers.He tells “public school bluffers” not to apply for a year-long assignment as his own personal assistant, promising that the job will involve interesting work alongside “uninteresting trivia that makes my life easier which you won’t enjoy”.The former director of the Vote Leave campaign stressed the long hours, saying: “You will not have weekday date nights, you will sacrifice many weekends. Frankly it will be hard having a boy/girlfriend at all.”Mr Cummings admitted that some of the Whitehall old guard would have fears about his proposals — “some reasonable, most unreasonable” — but insisted that many officials, particularly younger ones, were ready to embrace change.His blog enthused about the frontiers of the science of prediction, AI and cognitive technologies, and “the selection, education and training of people for high performance”.He said: “In many aspects of government, as in the tech world and investing, brains and temperament smash experience and seniority out of the park.”Mr Cummings’s principal interest is in applying mathematics and science to political problems, and his blog has invited high-achievers from the world’s great universities to apply for jobs at the heart of Mr Johnson’s Downing Street operation.He suggested, by way of example, that they should consider a paper in the journal Nature — “Early warning signals for critical transitions in a thermoacoustic system” — which looks at systems in physics that could be used to warn of epidemics or financial meltdowns.The chief adviser, who is positioned at the heart of a powerful new Downing Street machine, is also on the lookout for project managers and innovative communications experts.His blog suggested Mr Johnson’s government would be willing to expand the number of paid political appointments (special advisers or “spads”) to oversee this new approach.“We want to hire an unusual set of people with different skills and backgrounds to work in Downing Street with the best officials, some as spads and perhaps some as officials,” he said.Although the blog is aimed at recruiting outsiders into Number 10, Mr Cummings said there were “many brilliant people in the civil service and politics” and invited them to apply too.
