Yeah some lifestyle changes are going too far! We don't use cameras for conference calls. Saves bandwidth.
Yeeeeah [he said, shiftily]. Bandwidth. Definitely to save bandwidth. Absolutely not anything else ------->
2267 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
BEV are sort of a stop-gap solution. The tech mostly works, for some people it's inconvenient and/or doesn't suit their needs, and numbers are low enough now that vastly increased generating and charging infrastucture isn't yet essential. But it will become essential, and that's where things get tricky.
Ethanol (carbon neutrally sourced) or hydrogen fuel cell seem better for convenience in the long term, and existing fueling infrastucture can (with some effort of course) be adapted more easily than a massive generating capacity build-out and rewiring everyone's home and street to handle the current demand.
But the tech really isn't there yet for widespread adoption, so BEV fills the gap. The question is can the gap be closed fast enough.
The cynic in me suggests that maybe:
a) Boris chooses his experts.
b) Boris' experts have a vested interest in saying what he wants to hear.
Quarantine doesn't kill the virus. That's not the aim, and don't believe that is being suggested. The aim would be to slow its spread to manageable levels that don't overwhelm local and national health services.
Italy left it too late, and when they did respond they did it piecemeal, hence why they're in the shit now.
China left if too late and it rapidly ballooned almost out of control. Almost. It's only after drastic quarantine was enforced that they got it back under control, and even then that took a few weeks to see the effect. But it is working, as the steady decline in new cases shows.
Didn't mention curing it. Vaccine development is being fast-tracked, new methodologies attempted, though it's debatable whether that will ultimately succeed. I fail to see how to manage viral spread at a low level by allowing it to run unchecked through the population. Easy to say when your partner doesn't have severe asthma and a blunted lung from plurasy earlier in life.
3 weeks covers the incubation period. After 3 weeks most people infected will either be over it or should remain isolated until their symptoms clear or they can be hospitalised.
There will still be a peak, but it will be lower because it hasn't had a chance to run rampant through the population.
Letting it run unchecked now will bring on the peak. Italy didn't react soon enough and their health system is teetering on the brink of collapse. But sure, let's do the same thing here because this time it will be different.
I agree enforcement would be a challenge. But I'm not talking months. Start with 2-3 weeks. Monitor the spread. Monitor containment and enforcement of isolation rules. Most people will go along with it because they don't want to catch the virus.
I respectfully disagree. Where's the evidence this approach will have that effect? I am aware that's the reason being trumpeted from not taking stronger measures yet.
Allowing spread unchecked through the population will not spread the peak.
Also, I find the advice to workers and schools contradictory. Workers advised to work from home wherever possible, to minimise viral spread. Yet schools not closing; the same workers advised to work from home are taking their kids to school, along with typicaly hundreds of other parents at each school. That will surely eliminate much of the gain made working from home.
It is not necessary to ... call muddling through it a plan (UK).
This.
Current response here seems designed to intentionally cripple the NHS as many (hundreds of) thousands become needlessly infected over the next few weeks.
Put the UK in quarantine now. Yes it will bring some short term economic pain. It will also dramatically stem the spread of the virus.
Consequences for the elderly... I'm torn of the stance being taken here.
Yes, if the kids have COVID-19 there's risk to the grandparents. But it's not clear yet if many kids actually have it. Some do, but how far has it spread among their friends?
Since bugs spread like wildfire among school kids, shutting schools now would surely help stem that tide.
Keeping the schools open seems a sure-fire way to guarantee many kids will get it at some point in the near future, and then will pass it on to parents and grandparents anyway.
This "let's let it play out a bit longer and see what happens" approach seems only likely to overwhelm the NHS over the coming weeks.
My feeling is lock everyone down, now. That will do wonders to halt further spread and allow the NHS to focus care on the remaining, much smaller number of people, who will get seriously ill. Yes there will be an economic hit, but that's nothing to hit when 80% of the population* get COVID-19 and half a million* of those die from it.
* Currently the stated possible outcome by BoJo's science advisors. Who admit they're guessing and there's no way to really know.
Why's a UK government dept putting out coverage figures of a proposed UK network enhancement, by UK service prodivers, for rural UK areas, in kilometers? Did we go fully metric overnight or something? Seems odd for a country that typically measures distance - especially roads and large areas - in miles and square miles. Maybe they know something we don't...
We don't know how many people on the watch list of 7492 were actually among the 8600 people scanned. We don't know how many real people-of-interest it missed. Are the 8592 people it didn't flag true-negatives, or are some false-negatives? We have no assessment of false-negatives.
We only know that of 8 people it thought it found, only 1 of those was a correct match (true-positive). The rest were false-positives, innocently going about their business.
So that's a 12.5% success rate for flagged possible matches. Not an auspicious start.
They aren't sharing the false-negative rate. Probably don't even care about such things. After all, nothing to hide, nothing to fear right?
But without knowing the false-negative rate it's impossible to assess accuracy, acurately.
Hence we can only draw conclusion based on the false-positive rate, which shows piss-poor 12.5% accuracy for true-positives.
And that's the best possible interpretation. It gets worse the more false-negatives there are.
All fair questions. Trouble is, governments everywhere are full of confused non-techies who believe China will somehow be able to exfiltrate any data they want without being detected, just because Chinese (the horror!!) hardware is in our civillian networks. Conveniently oblivious to where most electronic gear is made these days, because it comes in a box with a non-Chinese name.
Yeah, just like cellphone user location data is privileged private infomation, only availble to the cops. And to anyone with $100 in their pocket (see the long and inglorious history reported in these hallow'd pages e.g. bounty hunters, anyone pretending to be a cop, etc.)
So... a tiny proportion of all PCs running Win10, with sample data entirely skewed toward those running a subset of Windows Store apps. That's some quality* surveying right there.
Like looking out the window and saying "I can see blue sky therefore it's sunny everywhere.".
The only thing "handy" about this report is if it's printed out and I've run out of toilet paper.
*For values of quality at or near useless.
Yet one of the mouthpieces with her went the opposite way, saying bias in the UK system has not been proven due to lack of evidence either way.
Dick contnues being a dick, treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence.