Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
LetsBuild

Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

In comparing to coronavirus, let's say a road user is "a case".

Essentially 100% of the population is a road user and there are therefore 67 million "cases".

28 per million per year are killed.

Your annual risk is therefore 0.0028%.

In an 80-year lifetime of being a road user "case", your CFR is 0.22%.  Very much smaller than the Covid-19 CFR.

It's pretty important that road deaths aren't an exponential cumulative function. The problem that CFR has is an unpredictable fat tail.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Si1 said:

It's pretty important that road deaths aren't an exponential cumulative function. The problem that CFR has is an unpredictable fat tail.

I suppose you could see it as a linear cumulative function.  Your probability of having died on the roads increases each year of life.  It increases by 28 per million per year.

For the sake of argument this assumes road death rate is at equilibrium.  The population (=cases) stays the same.  This is not currently true for the coronavirus outbreak.

For road deaths to equal a CFR of 2% the average lifetime would be over 700 years.

Edited by kzb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue is fear....fear can make people act in irrational ways, when in reality there are many other things we are vulnerable to everyday that are a greater risk of sickness, accident or death.....all part of life's rich pageant.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2020 at 13:28, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Will not be good for the local business and tourism. Surely many people who visit the grand prix also engage in tourism and spend money locally in restaurants etc. There are also a lot of peripheral activities like fashion shows held alongside. wouldn't surprise me if activity generated over 100 million locally and possibly much more.

Exactly, and the feeling I get is that China are trying desperately to make this look more contained than it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be thousands of miles away.....but surprising how many economies all over the world require the spending power, the industry and the tourism of 1.5 billion people, all with wants and needs like ourselves.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winkie said:

Might be thousands of miles away.....but surprising how many economies all over the world require the spending power, the industry and the tourism of 1.5 billion people, all with wants and needs like ourselves.;)

Yep, thought we would have progressed a bit further as a race by now, but we all support it in our own small way I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, petetong said:

This study is a few days old and not peer reviewed but is from the Los Alamos Lab in the US and was funded by DARPA, so one would expect the math is up to snuff:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.07.20021154v1

Nice find! Yes, as its from Los Alamos you are right that the mathematical modelling will be sound!

Given the abstract:

The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is a recently emerged human pathogen that has spread widely since January 2020. Initially, the basic reproductive number, R0, was estimated to be 2.2 to 2.7. Here we provide a new estimate of this quantity. We collected extensive individual case reports and estimated key epidemiology parameters, including the incubation period. Integrating these estimates and high-resolution real-time human travel and infection data with mathematical models, we estimated that the number of infected individuals during early epidemic double every 2.4 days, and the R0 value is likely to be between 4.7 and 6.6. We further show that quarantine and contact tracing of symptomatic individuals alone may not be effective and early, strong control measures are needed to stop transmission of the virus.

I think we should be fairly nervous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With so much inequality in the world it's quite satisfying to know we are just as mortal as each other regardless of wealth to some degree, sure the super rich have their bunkers but they cant stay underground forever.

Had to chuckle at the story of the mp being a potential corona host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, longgone said:

With so much inequality in the world it's quite satisfying to know we are just as mortal as each other regardless of wealth to some degree, sure the super rich have their bunkers but they cant stay underground forever.

Had to chuckle at the story of the mp being a potential corona host.

I remember the news about lots of bunkers becoming active 4-5 years ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Nice find! Yes, as its from Los Alamos you are right that the mathematical modelling will be sound!

Given the abstract:

The novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is a recently emerged human pathogen that has spread widely since January 2020. Initially, the basic reproductive number, R0, was estimated to be 2.2 to 2.7. Here we provide a new estimate of this quantity. We collected extensive individual case reports and estimated key epidemiology parameters, including the incubation period. Integrating these estimates and high-resolution real-time human travel and infection data with mathematical models, we estimated that the number of infected individuals during early epidemic double every 2.4 days, and the R0 value is likely to be between 4.7 and 6.6. We further show that quarantine and contact tracing of symptomatic individuals alone may not be effective and early, strong control measures are needed to stop transmission of the virus.

I think we should be fairly nervous

Edited by GregBowman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, longgone said:

With so much inequality in the world it's quite satisfying to know we are just as mortal as each other regardless of wealth to some degree, sure the super rich have their bunkers but they cant stay underground forever.

Had to chuckle at the story of the mp being a potential corona host.

Lack of ICU space will kill most victims, with money that won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, longgone said:

With so much inequality in the world it's quite satisfying to know we are just as mortal as each other regardless of wealth to some degree, sure the super rich have their bunkers but they cant stay underground forever.

Had to chuckle at the story of the mp being a potential corona host.

A series of by-elections?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Lack of ICU space will kill most victims, with money that won't happen.

Most people won’t need ICU though - but yes In serious cases they might, and ICU space is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my Ph.D. was in developing anti HIV, HBV and HCV drugs. I’ve spent about 15 years working in virology in industry...I even wrote a novel about a dangerous outbreak. Sold 10k copies. This virus has the potential to be devastating. With a CFR from 0.5-4.0 and an R0 of 2.5-6.6, this is deadly and highly infectious. Once healthcare systems are overwhelmed with severe cases, the CFR will climb. Fighting viral then bacterial pneumonia without oxygen and ICU level care will not yield brilliant results. All of this is pretty much nailed down. PHE are being way too relaxed about this. They should be stamping on this where there are known infections and interactions with those infected to slow infection velocity and give spring a chance to kill it off, or for someone to find a suitable currently approved anti-viral that is effective.

This article in the Mail is astonishing, not just because it has one of the UK’s leading experts on this saying that 400k deaths in the UK are not an unreasonable possibility, but also because it states that the government is planning for 50% of the population to be infected. This was about 10 stories down, and not seen anywhere else, but it is astonishing news.

Daily Mail article of virus

Edited by HovelinHove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, HovelinHove said:

So my Ph.D. was in developing anti HIV, HBV and HCV drugs. I’ve spent about 15 years working in virology in industry...I even wrote a novel about a dangerous outbreak. Sold 10k copies. This virus has the potential to be devastating. With a CFR from 0.5-4.0 and an R0 of 2.5-6.6, this is deadly and highly infectious. Once healthcare systems are overwhelmed with severe cases, the CFR will climb. Fighting viral then bacterial pneumonia without oxygen and ICU level care will not yield brilliant results. All of this is pretty much nailed down. PHE are being way too relaxed about this. They should be stamping on this where there are known infections and interactions with those infected to slow infection velocity and give spring a chance to kill it off, or for someone to find a suitable currently approved anti-viral that is effective.

This article in the Mail is astonishing, not just because it has one of the UK’s leading experts on this saying that 400k deaths in the UK are not an unreasonable possibility, but also because it states that the government is planning for 50% of the population to be infected. This was about 10 stories down, and not seen anywhere else, but it is astonishing news.

Daily Mail article of virus

Accusations of conflict of interest[edit]

In January 2010, Wolfgang Wodarg, a German deputy who trained as a physician and now chairs the health committee at the Council of Europe, claimed major firms had organised a "campaign of panic" to put pressure on the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a "false pandemic" to sell vaccines. Wodarg said the WHO's "false pandemic" flu campaign is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century". He said that the "false pandemic" campaign began in May 2009 in Mexico City, when a hundred or so "normal" reported influenza cases were declared to be the beginning of a threatening new pandemic, although he said there was little scientific evidence for this. Nevertheless, he argued that the WHO, "in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their scientists, re-defined pandemics", removing the statement that "an enormous amount of people have contracted the illness or died" from its existing definition and replacing it by stating simply that there has to be a virus, spreading beyond borders and to which people have no immunity.[93]

The WHO responded by stating that they take their duty to provide independent advice seriously and guarded against interference from outside interests. Announcing a review of the WHO's actions, spokeswoman Fadela Chaib stated: "Criticism is part of an outbreak cycle. We expect and indeed welcome criticism and the chance to discuss it".[94][95] In March 2010, the Council of Europe launched an enquiry into "the influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign", and a preliminary report is in preparation.[96]

On 12 April 2010, Keiji Fukuda, the WHO's top influenza expert, stated that the system leading to the declaration of a pandemic led to confusion about H1N1 circulating around the world, and he expressed concern that there was a failure to communicate in regard to uncertainties about the new virus, which turned out to be not as deadly as feared. WHO Director-General Margaret Chan has appointed 29 flu experts from outside the organization to conduct a review of WHO's handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic. She has told them, "We want a frank, critical, transparent, credible and independent review of our performance".[97]

In June 2010, Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, published an editorial which criticised the WHO, saying that an investigation had disclosed that some of the experts advising WHO on the pandemic had financial ties with drug companies which were producing antivirals and vaccines.[98] Margaret Chan, Director-General of the WHO, replied stating, "Without question, the BMJ feature and editorial will leave many readers with the impression that WHO's decision to declare a pandemic was at least partially influenced by a desire to boost the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The bottom line, however, is that decisions to raise the level of pandemic alert were based on clearly defined virological and epidemiological criteria. It is hard to bend these criteria, no matter what the motive".[97] 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Albert Osterhaus? 

Albert Osterhaus? 

..... And would you consider him to be a distinguished scientist or liar and fraud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, prozac said:

..... And would you consider him to be a distinguished scientist or liar and fraud

Why is it relevant. There will be no vaccine, its uneconomic to make one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, prozac said:

..... And would you consider him to be a distinguished scientist or liar and fraud

There is some debate on that from some sides, but I tend to lean toward the distinguished scientist side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 316 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.