New coronavirus in/from China

[Vortex2]

The lock-down really does need to work.

What lock-down?

The voluntary lock-down that the cautious are carrying out despite the (lack of) efforts of HMG.

[adam2]

I doubt that we will "beat this in 12 weeks" as our dear leader hopes.
But I also doubt that it will be as bad as some on here predict.

Respected members have produced graphs, charts, and forecasts that have proved a good match to actual reported events.

As the infection spreads, I expect that such forecasts will become less accurate. Even a fairly modest level of already existing infections will limit further spread.
As a simplified but illustrative case, consider that at present 1000 infected individuals, might on average potentially pass the infection to 1,300 new victims. Of those 1,300 potential victims, 1,299 catch the infection and just one does not catch it because they already have it.

Now consider the situation when 20% of the population already have the infection.
1,000 such cases would still potentially pass it on to 1,300 new cases. But of those 1,300, 20% or 260 people already have the virus, so the actual number of new infections is 1,040.
1,040 new cases from 1,000 existing is a slower spread, and would get still slower.

This is probably an over simplification, but does illustrate an expected slowdown.

[Mean Mr Mustard II]

Perhaps that inflection point would be at 10M or so? So that would be 2.5M in a spot of bother. Which would possibly Rather Concern the cheery optimist / only the flu cohort, but let's not overly worry them. So far, so good. Curmudgeons in pubs. Racegoers. Politicians. All taking it on the chin for the rest of us. We salute our Brave Selfless Herd Immunity Pioneers! But just leave the rest of us alone.

[Little John]

I doubt that we will "beat this in 12 weeks" as our dear leader hopes.
But I also doubt that it will be as bad as some on here predict.

Respected members have produced graphs, charts, and forecasts that have proved a good match to actual reported events.

As the infection spreads, I expect that such forecasts will become less accurate. Even a fairly modest level of already existing infections will limit further spread.
As a simplified but illustrative case, consider that at present 1000 infected individuals, might on average potentially pass the infection to 1,300 new victims. Of those 1,300 potential victims, 1,299 catch the infection and just one does not catch it because they already have it.

Now consider the situation when 20% of the population already have the infection.
1,000 such cases would still potentially pass it on to 1,300 new cases. But of those 1,300, 20% or 260 people already have the virus, so the actual number of new infections is 1,040.
1,040 new cases from 1,000 existing is a slower spread, and would get still slower.

This is probably an over simplification, but does illustrate an expected slowdown.

I very much hope this is right Adam

[clv101]

This is good, has the NHS capacity line drawn accuratly:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... -lockdown/

So does this indicate that the NHS will be blasted whatever happens?

I don't think that blue curve on the right hand chart includes education closure - that's the key thing that brings the curve down to NHS capacity. That, and EVERYONE following isolation orders. Modelling suggests we can keep a lid on this - but we can never lift the lid until a significant chunk of the population is vaccinated.

[adam2]

Perhaps that inflection point would be at 10M or so? So that would be 2.5M in a spot of bother. Which would possibly Rather Concern the cheery optimist / only the flu cohort, but let's not overly worry them. So far, so good. Curmudgeons in pubs. Racegoers. Politicians. All taking it on the chin for the rest of us. We salute our Brave Selfless Herd Immunity Pioneers! But just leave the rest of us alone.

Yes, I agree.
BTW I am not a cheery optimist, but a "moderate doomer"

As regards pubs, If I was in charge, I would have prohibited the brewing of draught beer a week or two ago.
I would then two weeks after the brewing ban, have advised people not to visit pubs, and then another two weeks later have closed most pubs by law.
Closing pubs without FIRST banning the brewing of draught beer would entail the waste of a great volume of beer. And thereby waste the barley used to brew the beer. Barley like other grains might be in future short supply.
Beer is vital for morale and is a food of sorts. It was generally available throughout the last war.
I would therefore not prohibit the brewing of canned and bottled beer, nor "draught" beer in small containers of up to say 36 pints that are suitable for home use.

[Little John]

This is good, has the NHS capacity line drawn accuratly:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... -lockdown/

So does this indicate that the NHS will be blasted whatever happens?

yes

[Little John]

My longer term, but growing concern is if the entire global economy collapses, 1930s style. This is a real possibility now. It that happens, our main primary industry, which is money handling/laundering will be f***ed.

At which point, what do we pay with for the 60% of food we now need to import into this country? And how does an army that could now not even fill Wembly stadium twice keep the peace during the inevitable unrest that would accompany food shortages?

[eatyourveg]

My longer term, but growing concern is if the entire global economy collapses, 1930s style. This is a real possibility now. It that happens, our main primary industry, which is money handling/laundering will be f***ed.

At which point, what do we pay with for the 60% of food we now need to import into this country? And how does an army that could now not even fill Wembly stadium twice keep the peace during the inevitable unrest that would accompany food shortages?

Being in that unfortunate position begs the question would the 60% shortfall still be available for import?

[Little John]

My longer term, but growing concern is if the entire global economy collapses, 1930s style. This is a real possibility now. It that happens, our main primary industry, which is money handling/laundering will be f***ed.

At which point, what do we pay with for the 60% of food we now need to import into this country? And how does an army that could now not even fill Wembly stadium twice keep the peace during the inevitable unrest that would accompany food shortages?

Being in that unfortunate position begs the question would the 60% shortfall still be available for import?

Well exactly. At the risk of going off topic, this was my main reason for voting for Brexit. Not that it changes anything in the immediate term. But you have to start somewhere and that, for me, was stopping the pretense that we can just keep on inflating our population ad infinitum

Imagine how much more manageable this virus would be if (a) this country was not so densely populated and with such intricate, just in time supply chains and (b) following the virus, if the world economy consequently collapses, we would be at least able to feed ourselves. As it is, that is flatly not the case.

[boisdevie]

My longer term, but growing concern is if the entire global economy collapses, 1930s style. This is a real possibility now. It that happens, our main primary industry, which is money handling/laundering will be f***ed.

At which point, what do we pay with for the 60% of food we now need to import into this country? And how does an army that could now not even fill Wembly stadium twice keep the peace during the inevitable unrest that would accompany food shortages?

Being in that unfortunate position begs the question would the 60% shortfall still be available for import?

Well exactly. At the risk of going off topic, this was my main reason for voting for Brexit. Not that it changes anything in the immediate term. But you have to start somewhere and that, for me, was stopping the pretense that we can just keep on inflating our population ad infinitum

Imagine how much more manageable this virus would be if (a) this country was not so densely populated and with such intricate, just in time supply chains and (b) following the virus, if the world economy consequently collapses, we would be at least able to feed ourselves. As it is, that is flatly not the case.

If we don't bring in some form of rationing and soon the system is going to go tits up big time. Food - that's what worries me the most of all.

[Little John]

Being in that unfortunate position begs the question would the 60% shortfall still be available for import?

Well exactly. At the risk of going off topic, this was my main reason for voting for Brexit. Not that it changes anything in the immediate term. But you have to start somewhere and that, for me, was stopping the pretense that we can just keep on inflating our population ad infinitum

Imagine how much more manageable this virus would be if (a) this country was not so densely populated and with such intricate, just in time supply chains and (b) following the virus, if the world economy consequently collapses, we would be at least able to feed ourselves. As it is, that is flatly not the case.

If we don't bring in some form of rationing and soon the system is going to go tits up big time. Food - that's what worries me the most of all.

yep, rationing should already be in place. The fact that it is not is precisely the reason why "panic buying" is an entirely rational response by people to the current crisis.

In case anyone didn't get the memo - there is no such thing as society now. It's every man for himself and everyone knows that now.

[Lord Beria3]

All - my take on the coronavirus and its likely impact and duration.

https://forecastingintelligence.org/202 ... g-descent/

[Lord Beria3]

https://unherd.com/2020/03/is-this-what ... ooks-like/

Interesting article...

[Vortex2]

I think we are underestimating the resilience of society.

Suppose a 'young' region such as Silicon Valley survives relatively unscathed?

Even in the face of economic mess those people will survive : young, high IQs, hard working.

Repeat that across the world.

Fairly rapidly a new economic structure would emerge.

After all, we are 'only' talking of a population loss of say 1%, mostly the old and sick.