Generic Virus Thread

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

Yes, but is it because the virus is deadly or is it an overwrought fear of the virus causing this?

As I say, there are a number of countries where there are not so many drastic measures being taken. They will be interesting case studies after the fact. 

At a certain level it doesn't matter. If it's simply how the vast majority of people react in this situation, then you have to account for that in your planning and modelling.

[LondonLax]

24 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I would bet my bottom dollar that will happen. 
 

“Dunno what all the fuss was about. It only killed 50,000 people. Flu kills more than that every year”

etc

There is also a confirmation bias that works in the opposite direction, whereby should the numbers settle at a ‘reasonable’ level a lot of people may assume it was isolation measures that were responsible.

That assumption will need to be studied. 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I think we will look back with horror and see we were teetering on the edge of an absolute catastrophe.

And we won’t be “ looking back” on it for a long time yet.

Neither of which will stop a certain percentage saying it was a fuss about nothing.

It's ok a higher proportion of those will be dead, they'll be the pensioners going to the shops 14 times a day because they always do

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

At a certain level it doesn't matter. If it's simply how the vast majority of people react in this situation, then you have to account for that in your planning and modelling.

Agreed. 

The level of panic here in Sweden seems far lower than the panic in the UK and the measures taken here are far more relaxed. 

Is that a chicken and egg situation?

Edited March 31, 2020 by LondonLax

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Agreed. 

The level of panic here in Sweden seems far lower than the panic in the UK and the measures taken here are far more relaxed. 

Is that a chicken and egg situation?

I don't know, but one thing I would say is that while the difference in approach between Sweden and the UK is interesting, there are also several other factors that might make a fairly enormous difference to the consequences if the UK were to adopt Sweden's approach, starting with our comparative population sizes and densities.

[mjmooney]

On 29/03/2020 at 20:02, Genie said:

Window cleaner text us to say he’s coming tomorrow. Surprised that’s on the exclusions list...

Ours is carrying on. 

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't know, but one thing I would say is that while the difference in approach between Sweden and the UK is interesting, there are also several other factors that might make a fairly enormous difference to the consequences if the UK were to adopt Sweden's approach, starting with our comparative population sizes and densities.

No, no one seems to know which is what is so interesting about it. 

One thing I have been monitoring is that Sweden’s immediate neighbours, Norway and Denmark, have a compatible sized population and demographic as Sweden when those two countries are combined together (Norway + Denmark).

Norway + Denmark both went for a hard lockdown early on at about the same time whilst Sweden has taken a light touch approach throughout. 

At the moment the progression in Sweden is still comparable to Norway + Denmark. I’m keeping an eye on it to see if there is a significant divergence at some point, or perhaps whether Norway + Denmark ends up in the same end place but just took a different route to get there. 

[terrytini]

I’m a simple soul. But I like maths.

For me the whole thing is about a simple equation of cases needing ICU needing to be below ICU Capacity.

As soon as they aren’t people die, from both the virus and countless other diseases, accidents and illnesses which can’t be properly treated. This will include deaths which won’t show up yet, if at all, as being due to the virus, when people miss cancer treatment and all the rest.

Every reading of the available data shows that without the measures used the number of cases rapidly exceeds capacity, in country after country.

I find it hard to imagine that any sensible person armed with this information could question what’s been done. In fact the argument for me is why people weren’t at least warned / advised earlier so that those who wanted to could’ve taken steps sooner.

Also. Money rules. Governments everywhere have taken measures that will cost them. No government does that unless they’ve no choice. For them all ( virtually all) to do it suggest they had good reason.

[Stevo985]

26 minutes ago, bickster said:

My understanding is that if you are furloughed you are furloughed. You can't hve holidays during that period but you do accrue holidays you are entitled through it and the time you have to take those accrued holidays has been extended to 2 years. Seems like nonsense to meand your HR dept is talking through its arse

My daughter is working from home on full pay and she's been told she has to take a week off before June, that they can do because she's working but you really can't take holidays during furlough or you aren't furlouged anymore

Thanks. 
I’ll raise this to them today. 
 

Like I said the info came from my manager so it’s entirely possible that he’s misunderstood it

[magnkarl]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

No, no one seems to know which is what is so interesting about it. 

One thing I have been monitoring is that Sweden’s immediate neighbours, Norway and Denmark, have a compatible sized population and demographic as Sweden when those two countries are combined together (Norway + Denmark).

Norway + Denmark both went for a hard lockdown early on at about the same time whilst Sweden has taken a light touch approach throughout. 

At the moment the progression in Sweden is still comparable to Norway + Denmark. I’m keeping an eye on it to see if there is a significant divergence at some point, or perhaps whether Norway + Denmark ends up in the same end place but just took a different route to get there. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sweden doesn't test people unless they're seriously ill. Norway has one of the highest test rates % in the world, with 87000 people tested, only seconded by Oman. If Sweden tested their population extensively I'm sure the numbers would be much higher. You can compare Denmark and Sweden though, in which case they're fairly even.

If you compare Norway with Sweden I'd say that Sweden has much heavier death rates and infection rates than Norway.

Edited March 31, 2020 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

No, no one seems to know which is what is so interesting about it. 

One thing I have been monitoring is that Sweden’s immediate neighbours, Norway and Denmark, have a compatible sized population and demographic as Sweden when those two countries are combined together (Norway + Denmark).

Norway + Denmark both went for a hard lockdown early on at about the same time whilst Sweden has taken a light touch approach throughout. 

At the moment the progression in Sweden is still comparable to Norway + Denmark. I’m keeping an eye on it to see if there is a significant divergence at some point, or perhaps whether Norway + Denmark ends up in the same end place but just took a different route to get there. 

This might be of interest:

His basic point is that depending on which metric you choose, and where you begin measuring from, you can draw hugely different conclusions.

[LondonLax]

5 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I’m a simple soul. But I like maths.

For me the whole thing is about a simple equation of cases needing ICU needing to be below ICU Capacity.

As soon as they aren’t people die, from both the virus and countless other diseases, accidents and illnesses which can’t be properly treated. This will include deaths which won’t show up yet, if at all, as being due to the virus, when people miss cancer treatment and all the rest.

Every reading of the available data shows that without the measures used the number of cases rapidly exceeds capacity, in country after country.

I find it hard to imagine that any sensible person armed with this information could question what’s been done. In fact the argument for me is why people weren’t at least warned / advised earlier so that those who wanted to could’ve taken steps sooner.

Also. Money rules. Governments everywhere have taken measures that will cost them. No government does that unless they’ve no choice. For them all ( virtually all) to do it suggest they had good reason.

I agree with the above and that is roughly my position as well. 

However I would have to say the pressure on those making the decision to shut everything down must be immense from a public demanding their leaders do more which is why I find countries bucking that trend very interesting. 

As I say, for me the most striking thing seems to be how there doesn’t seem to be a playbook for this sort of thing in most countries with a notable exception to Sweden who say they are following an epidemic model developed by the country to use following Swine Flu. And yet Sweden are one of the most relaxed. 

[sne]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sweden doesn't test people unless they're seriously ill. Norway has one of the highest test rates % in the world, with 87000 people tested, only seconded by Oman. If Sweden tested their population extensively I'm sure the numbers would be much higher. You can compare Denmark and Sweden though, in which case they're fairly even.

If you compare Norway with Sweden I'd say that Sweden has much heavier death rates and infection rates than Norway.

As of yesterday Sweden had 14 dead per 1 million, Denmark 13 and Norway 6

UK has 21 dead per 1 million, Italy 192 and San Marino 737 

As per the official numbers that are ball park at best...

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

So does this mean if the minimum furlough period is 3 weeks we have to effectively be fully paid (or the 80%) for the three weeks?

And they can’t force us to take holiday until after that period?

my news came from my boss Who may have misunderstood things. News is travelling fast 

Bloke on an Internet forum caveat but my take would be that either your company are not going for the government grant and are paying the 80% out of their own pocket + the 2 weeks unpaid  , which I think they could do ( though it’s questionable )

or if they are applying for the govt grant then they have to pay everyone 80% for 3 weeks 

 

it’s not the firm our company use but I found this Website offering some good advice and views .. they are from an employers perspective but still useful (I think)

Quote

The minimum period of furlough for an employee is 3 weeks

Edited March 31, 2020 by tonyh29

[LondonLax]

5 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sweden doesn't test people unless they're seriously ill. Norway has one of the highest test rates % in the world, with 87000 people tested, only seconded by Oman. If Sweden tested their population extensively I'm sure the numbers would be much higher. You can compare Denmark and Sweden though, in which case they're fairly even.

If you compare Norway with Sweden I'd say that Sweden has much heavier death rates and infection rates than Norway.

No you are right, you can’t compare tested numbers of infected because of the different numbers tested. 

I was going by ultimate number of deaths. 

[HanoiVillan]

15 minutes ago, sne said:

As of yesterday Sweden had 14 dead per 1 million, Denmark 13 and Norway 6

UK has 21 dead per 1 million, Italy 192 and San Marino 737 

As per the official numbers that are ball park at best...

To be fair, I would argue that San Marino doesn't meet the minimum population size for deaths/million to be a useful metric, as the difference between 1 and 2 deaths produces massively different numbers yet is essentially chance.

[sne]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

To be fair, I would argue that San Marino doesn't meet the minimum population size for deaths/million to be a useful metric, as the difference between 1 and 2 deaths produces massively different numbers yet is essentially chance.

No obviously not

A death rate of more than 10% is pretty sad thou 25 out of 230 infected and 16 in critical condition.

Edited March 31, 2020 by sne

[LondonLax]

15 minutes ago, sne said:

No obviously not

A death rate of more than 10% is pretty sad thou 25 out of 230 infected and 16 in critical condition.

Yes, as I say though we are not going to know until it’s all over and we have a complete set of data to look at. 

[bickster]

if the population of San Marino is 33400 & the deaths per million rate is correct then the dead is about 25?

[Genie]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Ours is carrying on. 

That’s good.

I messaged our guy to say we’d leave it this week. I know the risk is small but thought I’d give it a miss. He came back with a really polite reply about how he’s having to do it to make ends meet but understood my position. I paid him anyway. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Genie