New coronavirus in/from China

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10587
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

It's there. @neil_ferguson): https://twitter.com/neil_ferguson?s=09
User avatar
Vortex2
Posts: 2692
Joined: 13 Jan 2019, 10:29
Location: In a Midlands field

Post by Vortex2 »

, a printer that uses bottle refills, not cartridges.
What model? And where would you get liquid ink from?
User avatar
Mean Mr Mustard II
Posts: 715
Joined: 27 Jan 2020, 17:43
Location: Cambridgeshire's Edge

Post by Mean Mr Mustard II »

Vortex2 wrote:
, a printer that uses bottle refills, not cartridges.
What model? And where would you get liquid ink from?
https://www.epson.co.uk/for-home/ecotank

Various models available (for now) I think I'll get a reserve set of bottles though. I wonder if, past warranty, it can be refilled at own risk with generic ink via syringe...

edit - generic refills available, eg

https://www.cartridgepeople.com
Last edited by Mean Mr Mustard II on 18 Mar 2020, 09:43, edited 1 time in total.
When you're dealing with exponential growth, the time to act is when it feels too early.
User avatar
Mean Mr Mustard II
Posts: 715
Joined: 27 Jan 2020, 17:43
Location: Cambridgeshire's Edge

Post by Mean Mr Mustard II »

Was pondering more on that luxury high end used guitar. It's just that - a recurring, idle fancy.

The reality is that I'd only buy portable, valuable, completely discretionary items like that as a protection against likely hyperinflation. Stores of wealth in categories of goods where I understood the market. But to begin with, in an economic and social depression, people will have zero appetite for luxury goods even if they could afford them.

Except Adam's ciggies. Guess he read the Weimar Republic history. And we are now in the same extreme territory. But.. hang on... Given that smoking is a big risk factor in COVID19, that particular market might tank too.
When you're dealing with exponential growth, the time to act is when it feels too early.
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3391
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Post by Catweazle »

Vegetable seeds are worth buying. If you don't have land plant it on someone elses.
User avatar
Vortex2
Posts: 2692
Joined: 13 Jan 2019, 10:29
Location: In a Midlands field

Post by Vortex2 »

Imperial College Report - key modelling assumptions

Full report: https://t.co/AwE2cHIbeJ?amp=1

This data may be useful to amateur modellers, or to those who want an idea of the true numbers behind the spread etc of the virus.

(The full report itself makes fascinating - but very concerning - reading. Whichever way you cut the cake there is no Silver Bullet, See the summary that clv101 found at https://twitter.com/jeremycyoung/status ... 2643357696)

Core assumptions:

* Infection was assumed to be seeded in each country at an exponentially growing rate (with a doubling time of 5 days) from early January 2020

* They assumed an incubation period of 5.1 days

* Infectiousness was assumed to occur from 12 hours prior to the onset of symptoms for those that are symptomatic and from 4.6 days after infection in those that are asymptomatic with an infectiousness profile overtime that results in a 6.5-day mean generation time.

* They made a baseline assumption that R0=2.4

* They assume that symptomatic individuals are 50% more infectious than asymptomatic individuals.

* Individual infectiousness was assumed to be variable, described by a gamma distribution with mean 1 and shape parameter �=0.25.

* On recovery from infection, individuals are assumed to be immune to re-infection in the short-term.

* They assume that 30% of those that are hospitalised will require critical care (invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO)

* Based on expert clinical opinion, they assume that 50% of those in critical care will die

* They assume that two-thirds of cases are sufficiently symptomatic to self-isolate (if required by policy) within 1 day of symptom onset

* They assume a mean delay from onset of symptoms to hospitalisation of 5 days

* They assume a total duration of stay in hospital of 8 days if critical care is not required and 16days (with 10 days in ICU) if critical care is required. (Mean: 10.4 days)

* Current estimates of the severity of cases:
Image
Last edited by Vortex2 on 18 Mar 2020, 10:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mean Mr Mustard II
Posts: 715
Joined: 27 Jan 2020, 17:43
Location: Cambridgeshire's Edge

Post by Mean Mr Mustard II »

Catweazle wrote:Vegetable seeds are worth buying. If you don't have land plant it on someone elses.
Farmer Palmer shouted (after shooting both barrels)

Get orfff moi laand...!
When you're dealing with exponential growth, the time to act is when it feels too early.
User avatar
Vortex2
Posts: 2692
Joined: 13 Jan 2019, 10:29
Location: In a Midlands field

Post by Vortex2 »

Little John wrote:I have produced a natural curve spreadsheet for the very purpose of comparison. So far the actual numbers are exceeding my spreadsheet with data I extrapolated from the 12th. I based the daily increase on an average of the previous 7 days. It came out at around 28%. But, has increased slightly since then. So the real world data is a bit higher than I have predicted.

To be precise, my spreadsheet puts the predicted figures for today (the 17th) based on an extrapolation form the 12th at 1,874 infected and 56 dead. As it is, the real world data for today is 1,950 infected and 71 dead for the UK.

Currently my spreadsheet, based on an unrestricted curve of infection, puts a peak of around 48 million in late April.

So the extent to which the curve is significantly flattened and lengthened (or not) relative to that prediction gives at least a rough approximation of the effectiveness of any measures

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ilemx3g4cm8zn ... 3.xls?dl=0
I use an exponential regression model - which predicts an over-high 2,320 for 17th March ... and yet 2 days earlier was bang on.

I assume that the sudden switch to under-reporting may be responsible.

That said, the R*R is still 0.99 and the real & trend lines are very very close.
Little John

Post by Little John »

Vortex2 wrote:
Little John wrote:I have produced a natural curve spreadsheet for the very purpose of comparison. So far the actual numbers are exceeding my spreadsheet with data I extrapolated from the 12th. I based the daily increase on an average of the previous 7 days. It came out at around 28%. But, has increased slightly since then. So the real world data is a bit higher than I have predicted.

To be precise, my spreadsheet puts the predicted figures for today (the 17th) based on an extrapolation form the 12th at 1,874 infected and 56 dead. As it is, the real world data for today is 1,950 infected and 71 dead for the UK.

Currently my spreadsheet, based on an unrestricted curve of infection, puts a peak of around 48 million in late April.

So the extent to which the curve is significantly flattened and lengthened (or not) relative to that prediction gives at least a rough approximation of the effectiveness of any measures

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ilemx3g4cm8zn ... 3.xls?dl=0
I use an exponential regression model - which predicts an over-high 2,320 for 17th March ... and yet 2 days earlier was bang on.

I assume that the sudden switch to under-reporting may be responsible.

That said, the R*R is still 0.99 and the real & trend lines are very very close.
It mostly comes down, I guess, to how reliable a predictor of daily rises are the numbers on which the predictor is based. Mine are bone simple. Just an average of the previous 7 day's rises. And they have slightly under predicted, so far. I may re-adjust my starting point to today and let that run concurrent to my previous ones with earlier starting dates for comparison.

Either way, this is a very rough and ready, amateur model. But, gives a rough approximation of when to expect the a natural peak and/or how much the government's measure are mitigating that natural peak.

Edit to add:

So, plugging in the real world numbers up to yesterday (17th March) including taking an average increase in cases per day for the previous 10 days (now 31%) and using that to extrapolate forwards, the peak of infection (which I have arbitrarily placed at 70% of population) has moved forwards a week to around the 23rd of April. Again, this is based simply on what has happened over the last 10 days. If and as the picture changes, so to will those predictions.
Last edited by Little John on 18 Mar 2020, 10:41, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mean Mr Mustard II
Posts: 715
Joined: 27 Jan 2020, 17:43
Location: Cambridgeshire's Edge

Post by Mean Mr Mustard II »

V2,

I'd ask (if you have the time and inclination) to do please keep putting out graphs etc. Not least because if they impose the pulse strategy outlined in the paper, would you really trust the Govt when they claim it's ok to briefly emerge for a couple of weeks...
When you're dealing with exponential growth, the time to act is when it feels too early.
Little John

Post by Little John »

I agree with a pulse strategy.

There are three possible trajectories this could take, so far as I can see:

1) Let it blow through unrestricted. In which case, we get to see what happens socially and politically when our medical system collapses and a million or two people die in their homes

2) Try and maintain a fantastically perfect balance at all times during this crisis for what may well be a year or more in order to allow just the right amount of people to be infected as we go.

3) Lock the country down, stop the virus more or less in its tracks. Then periodically, lift some restrictions on some groups at some times in order to allow a controlled flare-up of infection to occur. Once a manageable number (for our medical system) are infected, lock the country down again until they have passed through our medical system. Rinse and repeat until we have achieved herd immunity.

Option (3) is clearly the only viable one, in my view.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13556
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Little John wrote:
Option (3) is clearly the only viable one, in my view.
Are we certain that people who have been infected and recovered cannot be re-infected?
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 10978
Joined: 02 Jul 2007, 17:49
Location: North Somerset, twinned with Atlantis

Post by adam2 »

Option 3 above, SOUNDS appalling to most people, but is actually fairly sensible.
Lockdown cant be sustained forever, so periodically relaxing it and allowing some infections is arguably the least bad option.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6974
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

Option 3 is the one that China has taken. Unfortunately no country except China has the human or physical resources , or the absolute level of social control, to succeed at the approach. I think China is going for full eradication of the disease, and then total global isolation to keep it out of the country for good, until vaccination is complete. Apart from energy and food imports, they can sustain a viable economy in isolation
User avatar
leroy
Posts: 355
Joined: 09 Oct 2007, 19:16

Post by leroy »

Mean Mr Mustard II wrote:Given that smoking is a big risk factor in COVID19, that particular market might tank too.
Not a chance IMO. Ever seen the state of some smokers outside of hospitals? No legs some of em. Times of stress as well, make it very hard to give up. Some will give up food before fags.
Post Reply