Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
That has lots of data protection problems
I think Northern Ireland had more new cases over the weekend than Melbourne has in the last month.
And they’re talking about how awful it’ll be if they close “wet pubs”.
I don’t get it - I really don’t.
Particularly as reports are starting to come out about the long term effects to people of all ages that have recovered from having it.
It more fun news... I read an article complaining that casting Gal Gadot as the lead in the new Cleopatra film (written & directed by women) is “white-washing” because she’s not North African looking enough.
I’ll keep the link for when I need to push Dantes over the edge into insanity.
Well.... more insane than normal.
I’ll keep the link for when I need to push Dantes over the edge into insanity.
Well.... more insane than normal.
Sure, but I should have said via an app, which I presume gets round that.
Anyway, I think I'm coming round to the idea that waiting for a vaccine is probably best, because it does seem very likely to be achieved relatively quickly.
I do think people should broadly be allowed to do what they want, though, so long as hospital capacity isn't threatened.
Obviously in practice that's a pretty demanding condition, so behaviour needs to be sensible and controlled to some extent. But I reckon that should be the guiding principle.
Let people decide decide the risks they want to bear insofar as they don't harm others (ie by exhausting hospital capacity). I'm just never gonna be a fan of the sort of "lock people up for their own sake" extreme approach like they had in Melbourne.
But Cleopatra was... nevermind. Cast an unheard of black actress, pay them 1% of the salary Gadot would have commanded and give the other 99% to the old white man playing Caesar. #BLM
How can people decide what risks they want to bear when their perception demonstrably affects the risk of others? There are a lot of responsible people enduring more due to the stupidity of others right now, and every war effort would have a massive shame campaign to push on that behavior.
Last edited:
...Greek?
Proper Greek, back when it meant something, as opposed to the fake mathematicians they've become today.
How does it affect risk to others?
Everyone is free to isolate themselves as much as they like.
The 'externality' to put it in economic terms is the impact on hospital capacity for others who are being careful. But I already acknowledged that and said it should be the limiting factor.
Although, tbf, the careful would also be deriving unearned benefits from the reckless by them helping to keep the economy afloat, so...
I'm putting this in here just to keep it in one place but this whole 'NHS' Track and Trace thing should be enough to have plenty of people sacked or resigning.
tens of billions has been lost and squandered during this pandemic alone, I'd image a further few billion have been squandered trying to figure out Brexit and I'm sure more will continue to be lost.
Outrageous people are paid £5k plus a day to provide a system that is failing and potentially putting lives at risk.
People gave off when yer man Rami Malek was cast as an Egyptian king in some movie.... His parents are Egyptian.
The NHS had it's chance to kill him. They chose to save his pathetic life instead. Hope they're happy.
That's not haha mental dantes speaking. Corruption has no solution but to kill them. They are above all other forms of retribution, see Cummings. The only leverage people have to make them stop it is to kill them until they fall into line. It was good enough for the Medellin Cartel, it's good enough for England.
Lest in a decade they become too powerful to be got to anymore, see Putin.
Lest in a decade they become too powerful to be got to anymore, see Putin.
To take an example, if I want to be cautious, I can stay isolated 99% of the time, and take the odd trip to food shop. When I go, there are other people that are also food shopping. It will make a big difference to me, and my likelihood of getting sick, if those people take similar precautions to me, or on the other extreme, are antimask etc. So, it 100% matters to me what others that I may have to interact with, do. And that's not mentioning my ability to be seen in potentially over capacity hospitals if others aren't as careful too.
You don't need to mention the latter cos I already did, twice.
It was my understanding that it's virtually impossible to contract the virus just by passing relatively close to an infected person for say 5 seconds. Has that been debunked? If not I'd say you can basically control for that risk as much as you want.
Serco track & trace finds less than 70% of contacts.
Wales used the existing NHS track & trace facilities & have a 96% contact tracing rate.
Im more concerned about this 'Covert Human Intelligence Sources' bill than I am covid at present.
Talking of covid , the app(yeah I know) ping my work phone the other day saying id been close to someone who had stated they had symptoms blah but I had no need to worry but my Bluetooth data from the incident was being stored.
It didn't tell me where or really provide any useful information to me.
Secondly my colleagues son had his test results lost -lol booked a second test and again they never got the results
It's the closest I've come to the shoddy attempt at tackling this virus we've (they've) implemented
Talking of covid , the app(yeah I know) ping my work phone the other day saying id been close to someone who had stated they had symptoms blah but I had no need to worry but my Bluetooth data from the incident was being stored.
It didn't tell me where or really provide any useful information to me.
Secondly my colleagues son had his test results lost -lol booked a second test and again they never got the results
It's the closest I've come to the shoddy attempt at tackling this virus we've (they've) implemented
I'm sure if we get some consultants in to have a look at it, we can push that 70% up to 80%, and then eventually once they've worked on it for a year or two and given us an interim report with recommendations for future work, we'll get it up to 90%+.
What about the fact that I'm going to pull my kid out of childcare, but if there was 100% mask compliance and people had obeyed travel restrictions, I wouldn't need to?
Their decisions altered my risk. So yeah, I'm now free to make a decision, but the cost/benefit of that decision has been handed to me.
I relate a lot of this shit to road behavior. America's highways don't have traffic flow in accordance with the letter of law. People undertake. People don't keep right (left to the UK). People tailgate (follow closely) constantly A critical mass of people are just trying to get ahead of other drivers. And, if they weren't doing that, and were obeying the law, the traffic would actually flow faster, for everyone. But instead, selfish cunts model shit behavior. And, in many cases, in the short term, it benefits them. When people stay in the middle lane, it kind of would appear to make sense to undertake them. They are failing to keep right! When people do the bad things, it demonstrably benefits them, just as some people have rolled right through this shit, horrible, stressful year on the back of their own ignorance. And yes, others have died. Some shit drivers end up upside down next to the road sometimes too. Usually there's someone there with them.
Do you blame the individual driver and think "they should make better decisions!"
I do, sure, but I think it's the inevitable consequence of no enforcement, poor road safety training. Police don't pull people over for doing much of anything other than speeding. Most traffic stops have little to nothing to do with road safety. So this is what you get.
Passing one person once for 5 second has a low chance. The longer you spend with someone, the more people you're with, all increase the chances. So spending 5 seconds with 180 people has as much risk (or probably higher) than one person for 15 minutes. It's not impossible to catch it in 5 seconds, it's just unlikely, and that risk is worth taking unless you do it hundreds of times.
I'm genuinely not sure whether it works like that. My understanding was (and I checked just before) was that there's a threshold, not that it's a linear relationship between risk and all cumulative contact. If you're right then obviously that's a fair objection.
In general traffic flow is a classic public good problem in economics. The sort of thing you raised is definitely an issue where you can't maximise group utility with individual incentives.
Based on the assumptions I made above, I'm not sure COVID is equivalent. Yeah, the childcare thing is a problem, because they're not capable of acting individually, but that seems more like a social problem than one of policy. As you say, you feel forced to withdraw your child DESPITE the necessary rules being in place, because you can't trust the other parents. But I don't really see how that's something that could be solved by policy. It's just the nature of people, and your own imperfect information.
What I read is that it was 15 minutes cumulative contact over the course of a week with a confirmed case. I assumed that didn't need to be the same person. I'd say it's actually really hard for them to be sure on it either way, to be honest.
I've had 7 (seven!) exposure warnings followed by the nhs 'not enough exposure to warrant a warning' message in the last 24 hours from the app.
I have two positive tests/ self isolating staff out of my team of 10, & a mate's mum is in hospital on a vent, having spent three hours on a trolley cos there was no ward space for her yet last night.
It's clearly fucking everywhere in Liverpool again.
Don't worry, a couple of week of the gym being shut and spoons killing off the pub trade and the virus will dissipate !
Or manifest into some new Wspoons curry night /beer and burger strain
Oh so you meant that in order for the risk to accumulate each individual person would have to be infected? Sorry, for some reason I didn't get that.
Do you not see how ludicrously unlikely than would be, and how far from being equivalent to the risk of contact with one person for 15 minutes?
The risk of the latter is just whatever the chance of any one person having it multiplied by the chance of transmission in any single qualifying 'event'.
The risk of the former is whatever the rate of infection is raised to the power of 180, because every single one of the people you randomly encounter would have to have it. It's basically impossible. And I seriously doubt a normal person would even have 180 such encounters in a week if they were exercising social distancing to a reasonable extent.
It always works here in Austria.
That's not really what I mean.
The 15 minute thing is an estimate. It's not like you spend 14 minutes with someone and there's zero chance, and 15 minutes is 100%. 15 minutes is where the percentage likelihood goes above something, let's just assume 50% likely of passing it on. At 10 minutes it's maybe 20%, at 1 minute it's maybe 1%.
So, lots of short interactions with infected people, will increase your chances of getting it. Which is pretty intuitive.
The original question was, does the actions of others impact the risk of you getting it. If their actions increase their likelihood, then it will obviously increase yours.
To use the R value example, without restrictions, this has an R of about 3.0. Meaning that each person will, on average infect 3 people, that rolls into approx 59,000 people in 10 days. For reference, common flu has a, without restrictions, R of about 1.3, which after 10 days means one person infects 14 people
Wiith restrictions, we get Covid down to 1.0 or below, so it's either stable or regressing depending on that number. If people don't follow restrictions, that number can obviously explode and affects everyone's chances of getting it.