Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

It's not a disease that is very good at hiding.

Because it is very infectious and hospitalizes large numbers of people.

You can see from the first cases that it is unlikely to have been here that long. Because nearly all the first cases were traced to someone who had been abroard and overwhelmingly from an already virus hit zone. That is despite over 10000 people being tested, and probably a lot of people who are hospitalised with seasonal flu and pneumonia being tested as well. If someone in Jan/Feb was in hospital with pneumonia presenting these symptoms then they would have been tested and if the disease had been here already we would have seen that explosion in the detection rate.

I think some people are trying to minimise it (what are their motivations) by saying I had a bad cough, or seasonal flu, or pneumonia and therefore I must have already had it. This is pretty unscientific. Over the course of a year many people get flu, especially at this time of year, and many of those flu cases lead to pneumonia. This doesn't mean that because you have had flu leading to pneumonia that you have had coronavirus, or that it is any sort of evidence that it has been here for a long time.

If people come up with extraordinary claims (like a highly infectious disease that hospitalises 20% of the people who catch it) has been here a long time undetected, people need extraordinary evidence to back that up.

Edited to make more general, because it is not you making the claims !

Second this.

There is a concerted effort to minimize the danger of COVID19. We have to take it seriously and it is not Flu. Leave it to its own devices and it will kill 20% - young, old, healthy, compromised because we don't have the hospital capacity is 0.1% get it

[kzb]

20 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

At what point does that possibility justify extreme authoritarianism everywhere right now?

That 1.4 million deaths outcome is the likely outcome if no measures are taken.  It's not a remote possibility it is real. 

The possibility of that outcome is high unless harsh measures are taken early on.

[Peter Hun]

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

At what point does that possibility justify extreme authoritarianism everywhere right now?

The point is justified right now.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

5 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Second this.

There is a concerted effort to minimize the danger of COVID19. We have to take it seriously and it is not Flu. Leave it to its own devices and it will kill 20% - young, old, healthy, compromised because we don't have the hospital capacity is 0.1% get it

I think rather than people wasting their time trying to minimise it they should be preparing for it.

I understand there are two groups of people that fear it. One is due to health. The other is due to the impact it may have on their businesses/economic impact.

But you are far better off spending time preparing your business (and also for the ramp when we come out of the other side of it) rather than spending time trying to convince people it's nothing to worry about.

[Riedquat]

7 minutes ago, kzb said:

That 1.4 million deaths outcome is the likely outcome if no measures are taken.  It's not a remote possibility it is real. 

The possibility of that outcome is high unless harsh measures are taken early on.

I didn't say no measures.

How harsh is justifiably harsh? You can always protect more people the more extreme you can get - if we'd gone full-on lockdown as soon as the first Chinese case was discovered there would be next to no change of infections in the UK - and ditto with absolutely everything else perceived as a risk in life - the question is when are they justified and when are they absurd, where do you draw the line.

Also AIUI the millions of deaths are the worst case scenario, not the most likely scenario, if no action is taken.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Riedquat

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

The point is justified right now.

Right now if you believe that you must also believe that no-one should be allowed any freedom to do anything without official permission. In other words, no it isn't. It's disgusting how easily some people are cowed into obedience, or at least wanting to be ordered around, and how they justify that by treating it all as one extreme or the other ("do nothing or go for extreme measure are the only possibilities")

[kzb]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

I didn't say no measures.

How harsh is justifiably harsh? You can always protect more people the more extreme you can get - if we'd gone full-on lockdown as soon as the first Chinese case was discovered there would be next to no change of infections in the UK - and ditto with absolutely everything else perceived as a risk in life - the question is when are they justified and when are they absurd, where do you draw the line.

Yes there is a balance I agree.  But there are wide variations between people on where that is.

You are like a person in a building where there is small fire, at the far end of the building.  You don't perceive that you are in immediate danger so you decide to stay put for a while and see what happens.  Fair enough, but many people have been caught out by that false sense of no immediate danger.  They underestimate how fast a fire can spread.

[kzb]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Right now if you believe that you must also believe that no-one should be allowed any freedom to do anything without official permission. In other words, no it isn't. It's disgusting how easily some people are cowed into obedience, or at least wanting to be ordered around, and how they justify that by treating it all as one extreme or the other ("do nothing or go for extreme measure are the only possibilities")

No what is disgusting is how the BBC et al are implying people should carry on as normal.  For the sake of "GDP".

I would've thought you of all people would be on my side on this one !

[Riedquat]

Just now, kzb said:

Yes there is a balance I agree.  But there are wide variations between people on where that is.

You are like a person in a building where there is small fire, at the far end of the building.  You don't perceive that you are in immediate danger so you decide to stay put for a while and see what happens.  Fair enough, but many people have been caught out by that false sense of no immediate danger.  They underestimate how fast a fire can spread.

And I don't disagree with that, but if we're going to stick to the fire analogy it feels to me like some people are arguing that every building in the town should be evacuated and the entire town smothered in extinguisher, and are using the fact that some people are sitting near the fire and ignoring it to justify that.

If you evacuate the entire town every time there's a small fire that will sooner or later save lives compared to starting with just trying to immediately put out that fire, but it would be disproportionate and unacceptable. It seems like we're at the point where the fire has got out of the bin, the building should be evacuated, but certainly not the entire town or even the street it's on.

[MARTINX9]

42 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Right now the risk of you catching the virus, today, without any change of behaviour is tiny. There is a very distinct possibility - indeed more than likely - that that situation will change. But that is not the case right at this minute.

By directing an extinguisher at the bin. Not by getting the fire brigade to soak the entire building just in case, but you do have a plan to call the fire brigade if you can't put the fire out in the bin.

5 million journeys are taken on the tube alone in London every day. In rush hour you can literally be a couple of inches from someone's face including plenty of people with coughs and colds  - almost as close as you get with close family. National rail much the same in the south east. Trains including seats and handles etc are dirty, unhygienic and probably not regularly deep cleaned.

To suggest there is limited risk of catch and spread in those environments is ridiculous.  And then all those people go home....

Edited March 5, 2020 by MARTINX9

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

No what is disgusting is how the BBC et al are implying people should carry on as normal.  For the sake of "GDP".

I would've thought you of all people would be on my side on this one !

Not for the sake of GDP, just for the sake of living.

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, MARTINX9 said:

5 million journeys are taken on the tube alone in London every day. In rush hour you can literally be a couple of inches from someone's face including plenty of people with coughs and colds  - almost as close as you get with close family. National rail much the same in the south east. Trains including seats and handles etc are dirty, unhygienic and probably not regularly deep cleaned.

To suggest there is limited risk of catch and spread in those environments is ridiculous.  And then all those people go home....

To be concerned about that you first have to be concerned enough that there are sufficienltly likely people to be there to spread it.

[xiox]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Right now if you believe that you must also believe that no-one should be allowed any freedom to do anything without official permission. In other words, no it isn't. It's disgusting how easily some people are cowed into obedience, or at least wanting to be ordered around, and how they justify that by treating it all as one extreme or the other ("do nothing or go for extreme measure are the only possibilities")

Right - it's a balance that you have to use the best scientific and medical evidence to decide where to draw the line, looking at the potential outcomes. I don't think strong measures are that bad if they are limited in timescale or scope. If someone won't stay in quarantine with an extremely dangerous illness (e.g. ebola or maybe coronavirus), I think most people would agree that strong measures are justified to stop them leaving. People accept that in war that normal freedoms are temporarily suspended. This virus may well be as serious as a war.

[Peter Hun]

11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

 

Also AIUI the millions of deaths are the worst case scenario, not the most likely scenario, if no action is taken.

3.6%/1.4million dead is the BEST case scenario, it assumes unlimited medical care for all patients. Worse case is three times that amount. We don't have hospital capacity for 10 million patients.

The alternative, 3months plus of lock down, as in China, looks much more appealing. 

[Peter Hun]

2 minutes ago, xiox said:

I don't think strong measures are that bad if they are limited in timescale or scope.

The government plan is for the laws to expire at the end of summer, which fits the expected time scale of 6 months.

[longgone]

3 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

5 million journeys are taken on the tube alone in London every day. In rush hour you can literally be a couple of inches from someone's face including plenty of people with coughs and colds  - almost as close as you get with close family. National rail much the same in the south east. Trains including seats and handles etc are dirty, unhygienic and probably not regularly deep cleaned.

To suggest there is limited risk of catch and spread in those environments is ridiculous.  And then all those people go home....

i used the trains and tube for the first time in years during rush hours just before Christmas and plebs were packed into the metal cages like sardines South west trains had an ongoing strike and people were pushed together millimeters apart coughing and sneezing and fighting to get on, now bearing in mind this virus had been going on since November stands to reason thousands are infected already or may even have got over it but easily reinfected.  

utter vile  surprised people do this for money every morning. 

[slawek]

8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Not for the sake of GDP, just for the sake of living.

So you are happy for 1mln people to die just so your life is not affected too much. 

[Peter Hun]

Just now, slawek said:

So you are happy for 1mln people to die just so your life is not affected too much. 

Its irrelevant what he thinks,  its an academic exercise to object. Getting drastic very fast is the best way to revolve this quickly.

[scottbeard]

On ‎24‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 08:50, scottbeard said:

Flu in the winter isn't really a surprise though? 

....

There will be some economic disruption from it, of course, as there is from all natural disasters/events.

But basically "no" I'd say.

Just re-read my first post on this thread from 5 weeks ago.

I still concur with myself that "there will be some economic disruption".

I think I've changed my opinion to say that this might now be considered a Black Swan event.

[Patfig]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

Just re-read my first post on this thread from 5 weeks ago.

I still concur with myself that "there will be some economic disruption".

I think I've changed my opinion to say that this might now be considered a Black Swan event.

I am inclined to agree with you

[slawek]

12 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And I don't disagree with that, but if we're going to stick to the fire analogy it feels to me like some people are arguing that every building in the town should be evacuated and the entire town smothered in extinguisher, and are using the fact that some people are sitting near the fire and ignoring it to justify that.

If you evacuate the entire town every time there's a small fire that will sooner or later save lives compared to starting with just trying to immediately put out that fire, but it would be disproportionate and unacceptable. It seems like we're at the point where the fire has got out of the bin, the building should be evacuated, but certainly not the entire town or even the street it's on.

The fire analogy is not appropriate here. The virus outbreak spreads exponentially, the fire  more like in quadratic way.

Now probability of being infected is around 1/100k, in 2 weeks 1/10k, in 4 weeks 1/100, in 6 weeks most of population will be infected, assuming no measure to contain/delay it.  

[kzb]

14 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Not for the sake of GDP, just for the sake of living.

That's what I want to do, carry on "living", and I mean living literally, not "living it up".  My mother is in her 80's and is last surviving parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent. 

Very little of the frenetic activity you see all around is actually necessary.

[MancTom]

2 hours ago, RentingForever said:

Could be ok. If you fancy the risk of going through two airports twice. Or your airline/operator going bust. Or of being locked in  your hotel for a fortnight if there’s an outbreak. Or your employer putting a no-travel-including-holidays policy in place (is that even legal?)...

I think so - some universities have had a "no holiday" policy during the current strikes (unless you booked it before the strike dates were announced).

[slawek]

8 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Its irrelevant what he thinks,  its an academic exercise to object. Getting drastic very fast is the best way to revolve this quickly.

I am questioning his character.  I am not sure this can be resolved quickly, either you let it run without checks and in 1-2 months will be over as most of the population will be exposed to virus or try to contain/delay it. The latter will just slow it down until you have a vaccination/med. Relaxing containment measures will likely cause another outbreak unless you eradicate the virus completely (unlikely) or  most people are immune (due to the previous exposure or vaccination).

[MancTom]

42 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Right now if you believe that you must also believe that no-one should be allowed any freedom to do anything without official permission. In other words, no it isn't. It's disgusting how easily some people are cowed into obedience, or at least wanting to be ordered around, and how they justify that by treating it all as one extreme or the other ("do nothing or go for extreme measure are the only possibilities")

Reminds me of an old bbc documentary on cold war planning (think its on youtube). I found it shocking that in the NE one of the people who would be in charge, after a nuclear strike from the USSR, clearly delighted in giving orders for people to be executed (or the "ultimate sanction" as he called it) for minor infractions, during a role playing exercise. I suspect the government chose him, and others like him, because they knew they would have no compunction in executing defenceless civilians to keep order!

Edited March 5, 2020 by MancTom