For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 26
#1803366
johnm wrote:How do you define a viable business and over what time window?

There are no easy answers overall but we do know what mitigation measures are available, we're just not very good, as a nation, at using them as effectively as we might at all levels.

In my example , I guess that a pub which was on the brink of going under just before covid arrived would have already come to the decision over some period of time (or its parent company would ) that it was a non viable business:

Grabbing at Sunak's money as a perceived lifeline isn't, certainly post-covid, going to have any long term effect on its viability or lack of.

The difficulty is who decides which businesses will be allowed to slide....
#1803368
So we flatten the curve, then comes a relaxation of restrictions, another curve, then..........it will go on and on. When we eventually emerge from it all, for years there will be failing firms blaming Covid, hands held out for a rescue package.
#1803410
eltonioni wrote:Hate bringing it back to the OP, but we can see that lockdowns don't work and there is no vaccine - what's the exit strategy?


Of course lockdowns work. If we have evidence for anything at all then we had evidence for that. It is stopping the lockdown and asking people to apply common sense (which is patently less common than we might hope) that saw the inexorable rise in cases.

We all have a fine line to walk between eradicating the virus and destroying the economy. Most governments are walking the same tightrope. Our government are doing better than some and worse than others.
#1803414
It maybe that lock downs might increasingly not work.
Those mutations of the virus which are able to survive lockdowns will continue to spread. Those which cannot survive will die off.
Therefore lock downs are possibly helping towards selecting of the virus mutations towards versions that can survive ever longer as being the dominate sub-strain(s)..

Personally I think any 2/3 week circuit breaker now will just result in the infection rate reducing and then be precisely timed to increase again at Christmas time......and good luck with asking the UK population to lock down in their houses and see no one over Christmas.
JAFO liked this
#1803431
Personally I think any 2/3 week circuit breaker now will just result in the infection rate reducing and then be precisely timed to increase again at Christmas time......and good luck with asking the UK population to lock down in their houses and see no one over Christmas.


I hate Christmas in the UK the only thing that keeps me involved is trying not to spoil it for the grandchildren who are always overexcited like all youngsters.

The best Christmas I ever had was in Switzerland, dinner and Midnight mass, nothing else, it was great!
JAFO, Cns416, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1803432
Jim Jones wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:
Jim Jones wrote:Given there are no other obvious causes of these excess deaths except the presence of COVID...

Whether those deaths are direct or indirect matters in how to deal with them, IMO.

We know how to address lots of potentially deadly conditions. The presence of Covid is confounding that ability in many ways, people are not coming forward with early symptoms for one, and treatment provision is being diverted to Covid, increasingly so at the moment is another.

More insidious and prolonged harm can, of course, emanate from economic depressions that follow an uncontrolled epidemic. We may be hit by both effects. :(


In what way does your response to my post address the importance of knowing the cause of the additional deaths? :?

Let me remind you of what I was responding to.
Jim Jones wrote:Excess deaths pretty well do that. No need for detailed case analysis, just compare the current numbers with the average of the last 5 years. It’s not a small number.

It is critical to establish if deaths are direct due covid, or indirect due covid.
Last edited by Miscellaneous on Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
flybymike liked this
#1803439
johnm wrote:Wot @Jim Jones sed; and that's why the management of the pandemic matters and why failing to follow precautions is at best anti-social and at worst murderous.


Oh dear what a thing to imply of the NHS and care home industry ! But then I don't think you actually meant those who contracted the disease in either hospital or care home. Or have been affected by lack of support from loved ones.
#1803452
johnm wrote:The virus is entirely predictable it will infect people at an exponentially growing rate


Not an exponential growth. For simplicity of arithmetic, if there is an R number of 2.0 and we introduce 2 infected people in to a population on Time Period 1 , then the number of new infections for each Time Period, starting on Time Period 1 is:

2, 4, 8, 16, 32 ,64, which is a geometric progression

while an exponential progression would be: 2, 4, 16, 256, 65536

Bill H
johnm liked this
#1803504
Bill Haddow wrote:
johnm wrote:The virus is entirely predictable it will infect people at an exponentially growing rate


Not an exponential growth. For simplicity of arithmetic, if there is an R number of 2.0 and we introduce 2 infected people in to a population on Time Period 1 , then the number of new infections for each Time Period, starting on Time Period 1 is:

2, 4, 8, 16, 32 ,64, which is a geometric progression

while an exponential progression would be: 2, 4, 16, 256, 65536


The rate of change does not determine if growth is exponential or geometric. The terms are often used interchangably. Exponential generally refers to a real number being used for the exponent whereas geometric sequences use integers only.
#1803515
flyingdoug wrote:Exponential generally refers to a real number being used for the exponent whereas geometric sequences use integers only.


When @johnm posted The virus is entirely predictable it will infect people at an exponentially growing rate if mitigation measures aren't effective. he was rather begging a question. If we accept that his opinion of a growth in the rate of infection is correct, then the increased mingling within the population, lack of good hygiene practice, non-wearing of masks, and so on may well lead to an increase in that famous R number that was all the rage a wee while back, and further mingling, reduction in hygiene, etc may lead to further increases in the R number, but that in itself would not make the growth of cases an exponential growth.

Bill H
#1803523
Basically it all depends on the R number:

R<1 exponential decay and that's really what we want......

R=1 Flat, we can live with that and services should be able to cope routinely.

R>1 exponential growth, bad to very bad and likely to happen unless people strictly observe mitigation measures.
#1803527
johnm wrote:Basically it all depends on the R number:


Yes. but things like acquired immunity (and herd immunity if it happens?) and mutations resulting in less virulent strains will also affect the R number (in addition to the non-socialising, good hygiene practices etc you mentioned earlier).

Bill H
#1803532
johnm wrote:The best Christmas I ever had was in Switzerland, dinner and Midnight mass, nothing else, it was great!

True story; one of the best Christmas’s I ever had was the one when I woke up in a stranger’s bed on Christmas Day. They were away in Switzerland.
#1803533
Acquired immunity will help reduce the R number to a degree and that will increase over time which is why pandemics eventually start to fade away, herd immunity depends on a vaccine.

In the meantime effective use of mitigation measures is all we have.

I sat in a restaurant last night all staff masked, hand sanistiser everywhere and tables screened from each other, I then sat in a full theatre rows divided into groups with plastic screens and everybody masked up throughout. Full theatre means no wine because no removing masks, a price well worth paying :-) We added to our precautions by booking aisle seats so our distancing was rather better than others.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 26