Bigger in floor plan certainly . If only they had built one more floor at Airedale, it wouldn’t have become the small town it is, and there might even been enough room to park!Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Printable View
Bigger in floor plan certainly . If only they had built one more floor at Airedale, it wouldn’t have become the small town it is, and there might even been enough room to park!Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Yes, it always looks like a temporary building to me. Otley (Wharfedale) Hospital is new, nice and you can generally park. They don't do much surgery there but one can't have everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
But you will know that, being a local:)
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity."
which would put us over 30% and moving towards 40% by now if correct.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...jcp.13528?af=R
That would be fantastic if true. However, just to depress everyone, antibody testing in France and Spain suggests no more than 5% of their populations have had the virus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...shows-no-herd/
Anti-bodies aren't the only way you can be immune. I've heard a couple of Profs on radio advising that those exposed might not develop anti-bodies if their bodies immune system fended it off before anti-bodies have developed - white blood cells can defeat it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
It sounds plausible to me and would fit with those asymptomatic.
I suppose we'll know more in due course.
I hope they are right! It is a pity they do not compare their thinking with the random testing results so far. Has their paper been critiqued anywhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
There are issues of genetics , nature and nurture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Nobody knows despite the propensity of “ experts. “ to call each other wrong ( they sometimes use the phrase “ the government” to avoid being seen to criticise their peers). Although antipathy between oxford and imperial is well known. Go to any academic conference and see just how nasty and childish these rivalries are between many professors. “Can I have the first question” generally invites the first backhanded insult!
There is no easy explanation for why some populations have different response, so UK is unique.
I suspect most of the measures take were of null effect other than to the economy.
And the much lauded performance of some countries I think in time will be seen as population difference.
Corona got to most countries long before they were ever aware of it.
Shredded on twitter by people who seem to know what they are talking about. A recent study from Spain:Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Seroprevalence study from Spain, seemingly well designed (random sampling of households), 70K subjects, reveals 5% of country w/ antibodies with considerable geographic variation, infection fatality rate of 1.1%, 90% of cases undetected.
Shredded on Twitter :D
On a more positive note, it looks like Blackburn with Darwen had no new cases yesterday for the 13th May and running through the PHE data seems to be the case for the other 5 East Lancs constituencies as well.
London is now down to 24 a day, so something is happening out there.
A study carried out by Public Health England and Cambridge University calculates a much larger proportion for the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...g-north-south/
The new data also suggests that huge numbers of people have already been infected with the disease, around 6.5 million overall in England, including 1.8 million in London.
Overall, around one in 5 Londoners has been infected by the virus since the epidemic began, compared with 14 per cent of people in the North West, 11 per cent in the Midlands, the North East and Yorkshire, 10 per cent in the East of England and eight per cent in the south east.
This study is the same one that thinks there is only 24 new daily infections in London at the moment - as WP has mentioned. If true, could this be that an element of herd immunity kicking in? The number who have had the virus may be more than estimated above. The conventional wisdom is that 60% infection is required to achieve herd immunity. However, the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine thinks it is much less than that because it is based on the assumption that we are all equally susceptible to the disease. Clearly that is not the case. They say that gradually the pool of easily-infected individuals dries up and the virus has to search out new victims who are less-easily infected.
So a bit more than 10% have had it, if they are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
R varies with the organism, and with behaviour - in tight lockdowns it will be lower, with normal freedoms, higher.
And a low, or even zero R does not mean nobody is susceptible, it just means nobody is getting it, because of a
tight lockdown, for example.
The % of the population needed for herd immunity varies with R - and is 90% for an R of 10, 50% for an R of 2.
The results of more widespread serological testing will be interesting.
So let's say 10% have anti-bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
The school age population seems to have an immunity as well. That's 21%. (underlined by your Spanish study that showed presence of anti-bodies in children is nil - very low according to a Prof who's just discussed it on radio)
Then a proportion of the adult population have a natural immunity and defeat the virus without developing anti-bodies.
There's even a school of thought that smokers are less likely to catch (although if they do they are in more trouble) and they could be a barrier to cross infection. I can well understand this isn't put out there officially as the last thing the Govt wants is a spike in tobacco addiction.
It's quite easy to see how the traditional 60% herd levels thought to apply to such as flu may not be at play with CV, and note that SARS disappeared in the population.
And the cases of infection are dropping, especially when you consider that we have 10 times as many tests, and most of those tests are still mostly aimed at key workers assessed as higher risk, and suspected infected people the % of positives has dropped off a cliff.
It's lockdown perhaps? Or maybe it's pockets of herd immunity, or perhaps the overall levels of immunity/resistance are greater than many think.
The story with smokers is said by some to be a statistical artefact - something to do with allocating risk to groups - how do you separate smoking from gender, from income, from lung pathology, from cancer - and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Strange how they seem to be able to strip out ethnicity, obesity, gender.... but as soon as you mention smoking it is said by some….Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...d-19-survival/
Article here with some links to some work done.
https://www.qeios.com/read/FXGQSB
A bit technical for me, but some might like a read.
But the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes these virus just burn out in the population and the section of society that has developed anti-bodies only seems to be part of the story.
Sorting out cause/effect/association is a real problem in statistics/epidemiology. The classic case was with HRT - hormone replacement therapy - in post menopausal women. For years we were told that HRT was good for bones, but that the main benefit, based on observational studies, was in cardio vascular disease reduction. When trials were eventually done it turned out this was completely wrong. They had been unable to separate the effect of income on risk from the benefits or otherwise of HRT. Those on higher incomes were far more likely to ask for HRT - the statisticians thought they had allowed for this in their statistical modelling, but they hadn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
12 new cases in the last 2 days across the 6 East Lancs constituencies.
Who is telling the truth???
Roll on a round of golf tomorrow ��
More evidence , not that any is needed, that teachers are playing hookey and actively damaging child education by keeping schools closed when the case was only borderline in the first place: meanwhile the economic damage are doing is massive by forcing parents to look after kids , so stopping others going to work. Selfish is the only description.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...w-study-finds/
The teachers unions were given a false choice. Stay at home on full pay, or work on full pay. No surprises which they pick.
The choice should have been be furloughed on 80 percent pay up to 30000( like everyone else in private sector), or go back to work. Take your pick. Payment is supposed to be for work. Too much of the public sector is at home on full pay.
Can anybody see an identifiable penny paid by public sector for the cost of corona?
You would appear to be far more knowledgeable than me on this subject... but i see it like this... you have a choice... private or public sector... public sector generally brings a lower salary, but benefits in the way of great pensions, and as we are seeing now, a degree of protection provided by the government/state/unions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
"We" choose to work in the private sector, and have the opportunity to be rewarded well based on merit with generally better salary prospects, but (much like the self-employed and business owners), we are liable to fall on our sword if the economy struggles.
I interviewed (and subsequently turned down a job offer) from one of the huge water providers in this company... was basically told that if i was in any way competent it was a job for life, fairly stress-free, and great pension. But i chose a similar role within a private sector company as the salary was almost 50% higher.
I'm not saying it's right that the teachers appear to have such a degree of protection, but that's the plus side of being in the public sector...
I think the salary point in the public sector is patchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
Basic job in private sector - supermarket, care worker, warehouse operative.... tend to be minimum wage and basic jobs at the Council tend to be north of £10 per hour.
And there's plenty of info out there about higher level managers in the public sector earning £100k +
I'm with Travs on this one. With my expertise, I could have gone into the oil industry, civil engineering, etc and earned a lot more, but would have had less security in case of a downturn in such a sector than I do in academia (although my security in academia has gone out the window, but that's another story).
I remember a professor of Maths at Sheffield University (who worked in areas of maths with industrial applications; and note: "professor" is top grade within a department) telling me that his 31-year-old daughter was earning more than he did, and his younger daughter soon would be. I think they worked in finance or insurance or something similar.
I was recently contacted by one of my former students, now working as an actuary; a 2015 graduate, but I suspect he may already be earning more than I am. I'm not complaining: I have had a satisfying career, I have certainly earned enough to live on and, just to upset Oracle, I will have a Defined Benefit pension.
At the lower end of the pay range, I'm sure WP's observations are true; I think the difference between the top and the bottom is much greater in the private than the public sector. How much more would the £100k public sector manager be earning in the private sector?
Er, no. Having been made redundant 3 times before I was 30 (all private sector jobs) I had to take whatever job I could to pay my mortgage, so was forced to take a private sector one I didn't want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
When the 2008 banking crisis hit it was the private sector that got slaughtered. We made 25 percent of staff compulsory redundant. My department lost 75 percent of its staff, but only 25 percent of its work. We also had our pay cut by a third, 'There's the door if you don't like it...' that was never returned. We also worked 3 days a week, for 3 months a year, for 7 consecutive years.
For those of you who know your NHS pay bands I went from the middle of band 7 to band 3, (that's the band below a newly qualified nurse). Whilst there was a time when private sector pay was higher (and the risks were higher) that disappeared a long time ago.
Public sector pay is higher than that of the private sector, although it has narrowed in recent years - look at figure 4.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentand...n/february2020
Public sector pensions are also generally vastly superior to those of the private sector.
Every job has its own positives and negatives.
And most of the time we have a choice.
Time, experience and knowledge are sold to an employer.
Statistics are wonderful to create a smoke and mirrors effect.
Every area of employment is different there is very little of continuity between private and public sectors.
Similar to your house. It's there so live in it, make the best of it or move.
It is a convenient myth public sector salaries are lower.
Many Universities have at least 50 earning over 100K!
Even small councils like ours have a dozen.
Recently advertised non jobs in the nhs are 65k for a diversity officer, or if you prefer a performing arts manager, It riles me how much public sector wastes.
Add in the pensions at market cost, retiring early as most if them do, and the returns are outrageous.
The cost of pensions outweighs any tax that many of them will ever pay, particularly mps.
Which is another issue: Hmrc are obliged to treat benefits at market cost.
Why then are public sector pensions massively undervalued for taxation? They use an assumed cost for multiplier, not the market rate. I am not allowed to put money in my pension scheme to return at the rate public sector get.
I do think government should treat all equally.
If furlough is 80 percent in private sector and self employed, it MUST be the same in public.
Otherwise the moral hazard and union troublemaking inevitably leads to all of them staying home.
And if the retirement age is 67 that is when public sector schemes should kick in unless a massive reduction is made for early.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
PS
I would say that there are more folks hiding in the public sector.
Oracle has a point that if people who are on full pay were dropped to 80% they would be knocking the doors down to get back to work.
We can all pick out specific examples. Perhaps i shouldn't have generalised with my specific example.
However the two roles i interviewed for, the Private Sector company were paying almost exactly 50% higher salary (not to mention i believe in private companies there is also far more scope to negotiate your own terms). Whilst the roles were not identical, they were very similar and in fact had the same job title.
Certainly the private sector can get very high at the top end, where some CEOs are paid in the millions.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonykay
But what I noticed in my industry, where I was selling in to big retailers like Clarks, Tesco, Next..... is that the wages growth through the 90s and in to the 00's was excellent.
But as a result of the downturn in late 00's many well paid jobs were trimmed back. One example was a senior buyer at Littlewoods on £80k pa and decent package of benefits. Experienced buyers could move jobs annually and add 20% to their salary. But all that ended. Redundancies were made. Juniors promoted, vastly reduced the wage bill and the typical salary dropped 30-40% within 12 months.
I remember hiring a painter and decorator in the 80s and the going rate was £10 an hour. That was about 4 times the typical show factory workers rate in Rossendale.
The going rate is still around £10 an hour.
Lots of reasons, and it probably has a lot to do with supply and demand, as my son-in-law in the private sector has seen excellent wage growth as a (now) Senior Developer at 25 years old in an IT company.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Travs
In a previous existence I managed Salary Administration, Recruitment, Management Development et al for a 5000 staff employee company.
Everybody on the planet can make a special case for themselves.
My Director once told me it was easy to give money away and he wasn't going to pay me to do it.
If salary comparison was easy then consultancy companies like Hay would not earn £millions advising companies on what they should do.
(And FWIIW throughout my career I was always paid well - or I might mean "fairly" - but most importantly, I recognised it).
What you fail to mention, and is conveniently hidden behind the telegraph's paywall, is that the study was carried out in Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
The researcher who conducted the study said it could not be used to make any recommendations on uk policy decisions, as the rates of infection between the two nations are not comparable.
As for the rest of your rant, I refer you to my previous reply to you.
Indeed, Victoria Derbyshire was giving someone a bit of grief about how the Australians were handling it. It occurred to me that the Aussies are operating in totally different climatic conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackd
not that different if you're in Adelaide or Melbourne.Quote:
Originally Posted by wheezing donkey
It was presented as more evidence. I don't see anything wrong with that - it's exactly what it is.
The study does not apply to the uk. Its not because of the climate. Its because they have only had 99 deaths in total, and 15 new cases of infection today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
What are we at now? 35000+ deaths? How many new cases today? More than 15 by a fair way.
What they do in Australia can't really be applied here
...yet, as the researcher who carried out the study we are discussing, pointed out on the radio this morning.
Its being used by the Telegraph and those of an anti teacher / public sector opinion to roll out the 'lazy skiver' and 'millitant unions' message. Its the Daily Mail with longer sentences.
I have to completely disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackd
Our team on the SAGE group will be looking at all evidence from other countries and working out if an how it might apply here and help them offer better advise to Government.
It's not whether it can be applied here. It's whether any information could be useful, and evidence of infections in schools would be relevant from Australia, Singapore, Denmark...
Well, I happen to agree with you. I agree all evidence should be considered. My point is not about the study in and of itself, nor what it's conclusions are. It's the way it's been politicised by the tory press and the anti union / teacher brigade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I think I said it did not apply here yet. Of course it may be useful to help the planning, I don't dispute that. It's the Telegraph and others using it as a tool to bash the teachers & their unions that is my concern. Australia is in a very different situation to us and what applies there does not apply here at the moment. I'm not saying don't look to other countries (perhaps we should have sooner) I'm saying don't take these studies and their findings out of context. The researcher who led the study said something similar on the Today programme this morning.
That's rather good. And I read the DT.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackd
I like the crossword.
In my experience, the Guardian cryptic crossword is more taxing than it’s DT equivalent.
Maybe so but its politics!Quote:
Originally Posted by harv
How is the young man?Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
1/ There is no such thing as safe. Bugs are an occupational hazard in schools.
2/ The case for closure was borderline. Teachers “ self isolating “ and unions forced the closures due to too low staffing. They should still have kept the schools open. Others could have come in in absentia.
3/ doing half a job from home is stuffing all others who want to work, but teachers deciding parents have to look after there own kids. Selfish is the word. At what point did you consider others who want to go into work?
4/ If you all stood up to your unions , you would be back in work already. They are a convenient excuse. My parents were teachers . NAS and NUT were lefty troublemakers back then. Hated by most teachers, but too few were willing to stand up to them.
Schools have form.
I refer to the icy period several years ago.
Schools (and all those who get paid regardless) decided it was too dangerous to go into school.
All those who have to go into work to get paid, made it. All those who had to make it to my house had no problem doing it. But it was too dangerous for teachers.
Seriously.
With the attitude problem in the public sector of schools, transport workers, local authorities we would have lost the war.
I don’t know many private sector workers who invest in cayman either. Total red herring. Average teacher retirement age is still 60. Unaffordable.
All I am arguing for is parity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackd