[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 12:14:10
UK census says 87.5%.
What date?

2011 census, and yoju ar eright, it was 87.1, not 87.5%

Given that the IOP (a) includes the Irish Republic (96.3% white in 2016) and (b) only recruits graduates to Member status (so the more appropriate data would be from the previous censuses)  10% non-white membership indicates exceptional diversity and suggests we need to encourage white kids to study physics!

[alancalverd]

It's true that only 712 were infected.
But we simply don't know how many would have been infected if they were stuck on the ship for longer.

Probably everyone, eventually, since nobody is known to have inherent immunity and they were mostly adults. However since the passengers were segregated in cabins we can assume that the reported infections account for pretty nearly all those actually infected at the time of release, so the crude lethality rate up to the point of release is deaths divided by infections, not deaths divided by potential infections.

Even with his optimistic figure the death toll was unacceptable.

What he, HM Government and half the population of the USA seem not to appreciate, is that any avoidable death is unacceptable.

[alancalverd]

The thing to keep in mind is that the R0 of SARS-COV2 is around 2.5-3.5

Not being pedantic, but a bit concerned about the loose use of jargon in this context.

R is not a property of the virus, but a consequence of human behavior.

If all the carriers self-isolate, R = 0

If carrier zero attends a Trumpist rally and kisses the other 10 surviving members, R₀ = 10, and if they all go and spread the gospel likewise, R _Trumpist = 10 x the number of days they remain infectious - maybe 10.  That's a pretty good way of solving one problem, at least.

I wince whenever I hear a politician say we are reducing the R value for COVID.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 12:14:10
UK census says 87.5%.
What date?

2011 census, and yoju ar eright, it was 87.1, not 87.5%

Given that the IOP (a) includes the Irish Republic (96.3% white in 2016) and (b) only recruits graduates to Member status (so the more appropriate data would be from the previous censuses)  10% non-white membership indicates exceptional diversity and suggests we need to encourage white kids to study physics!

There  are many factors.
This can't be one of them.

"because 90%  of the population of the British Isles is white".

Because it's wrong

[evan_au]

Here in Sydney, we have had a new outbreak in the past week - it appears to be a strain from the USA.

It appears that while international passengers must enter quarantine for 2 weeks, pilots and cabin crew on the same flights are free to move around the city. Both passengers and crew have come from the same overseas city, so have probably have similar exposure risk. That sounds like a chink in the armour that must be closed.

My planned summer vacation in January is looking less likely every day...

[alancalverd]

There  are many factors.
This can't be one of them.

If you insist:

Institute of Physics members are all and only graduates or equivalent, and nearly all British or Irish (other states have equivalent societies)
Very few graduates are aged under 20, so we can assume that nobody born after 1999 is a Member.
The 2001 census of the UK returned 93.14%  British, Irish or Other, white.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude to a first approximation that the IoP membership being 90% white is a representative sample of the ethnic distribution of the population.

Where's the flaw? What are the "other factors"?   

[Bored chemist]

Where's the flaw?

You made this statement

"because 90%  of the population of the British Isles is white".

which is false.
That's a pretty big flaw if you plan to use it in justification of something else.

Other factors are likely to include the  fact that the membership is an "integral" of the demographics. The fact that science subjects are seen by some people as "white male" subjects- more so in the past but to some extent today.
The fact that one of the requirements is a degree, and the demographics of university students are not the same as those of the population as a whole- poverty plays a part here.

Lots of things might be factors.
Something that is not true can not logically be a factor.

[alancalverd]

Fact 1. 87.8% of the current population of the British Isles is white. That was near enough 90% to make me question the value of the adjective in "only 10%" of the IoP membership is non-white.

Fact 2. Only those aged over 20 can qualify for membership since the qualification is a physics degree, which is rarely awarded to anyone younger.

Fact 3. Of the population aged over 20, more than 90% are white, and the older the slice, the whiter it gets. We have some very old members.

Conclusion: it would be very surprising if more than 10% of the membership was not white.

Your opinions and vague hints at other factors are fairly widely held but not supported by more detailed statistics held by the IoP which suggest, among other things, that girls who identify as black are twice as likely to study physics beyond A level than those who identify as white. I've no  idea why, but if the numbers are statistically significant, it's an interesting finding.

Science advances through the study of anomalies, not the repetition of the obvious.

[alancalverd]

pilots and cabin crew on the same flights are free to move around the city.

Utterly insane! Whilst a passenger is unlikely to come within 2m of more than  six others, cabin crew will have been up close and personal to all of them, and sit in a briefing room with the pilots for an hour between flights. It's a miracle that any of them survive.

[Bored chemist]

Fact 1. 87.8% of the current population of the British Isles is white. That was near enough 90% to make me question the value of the adjective in "only 10%" of the IoP membership is non-white.

Fact 2. Only those aged over 20 can qualify for membership since the qualification is a physics degree, which is rarely awarded to anyone younger.

Fact 3. Of the population aged over 20, more than 90% are white, and the older the slice, the whiter it gets. We have some very old members.

Conclusion: it would be very surprising if more than 10% of the membership was not white.

Your opinions and vague hints at other factors are fairly widely held but not supported by more detailed statistics held by the IoP which suggest, among other things, that girls who identify as black are twice as likely to study physics beyond A level than those who identify as white. I've no  idea why, but if the numbers are statistically significant, it's an interesting finding.

Science advances through the study of anomalies, not the repetition of the obvious.

You forgot fact 4
"None of facts 1 through 3 is what Alan actually said (and, reportedly, wrote to the IOP so that they could advance their studies)".

It's really nobody else's fault that you failed to say something like
""because 90%  of the eligible population of the British Isles is white"."

girls who identify as black are twice as likely to study physics beyond A level than those who identify as white.

That is, indeed, interesting.
On the other hand, my recollection is that from my rather large school only 1 girl studied physics at A level and none went on to do it at uni.
I realise things have changed in many ways but there is still a fair chance that you are looking at "twice nothing is still nothing".

It seems things have improved, but not as much as I had hoped. It's about 4:1.
https://www.iop.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/why-not-physics.pdf
Physics is still largely "seen" as a "boys" subject.

[acsinuk]

"pilots and cabin crew on the same flights are free to move around the city..
I cannot visit my sister but if her boiler fails I can as a workman fix it for her within the rules.  Same applies to aircrew..
Anyway, forget about testing kids and other trivialities but let us get on vaccinating everyone fast.

[acsinuk]

If another mutate of the Covid 19 occurs then immediately  check that the vaccine still works and if necessary modify it slightly before sending it to some fit volunteers in old age care homes to prove it works with no adverse effects noticed. 
We do not have time to be pedantic and legalistic; this is a national emergency!!!!

[alancalverd]

If you had a new vaccine tomorrow, it would take a month to prove it works, by which time half the population would be infected  if you removed all restrictions on movement and assembly.

The proper response to an epidemic is immediate and total quarantine. Once you have stopped the virus from infecting new carriers you may have the time to investigate a vaccine to prevent it starting again.

This is the best time to do the right thing. Most industries will be closed or running on skeleton staff for the next 7 days anyway, so a 2 week total quarantine, followed by a further 2 weeks for anyone with symptoms, would bring the problem under control at negligible cost. 

[acsinuk]

Well, if this was the very start of the virus then quarantine could work but the virus is everywhere already so its just too late    This virus is just a nasty flu and will fade away once the vaccine starts building up our herd immunity.
Follow Tony Blair's advice quickly before it mutates again.

[Bored chemist]

Well, if this was the very start of the virus then quarantine could work but the virus is everywhere already so its just too late 

The virus isn't "everywhere" you nitwit. That's why we are trying to stop it spreading.
For example it's not, and never has been in my dad's house.
We would prefer to keep it that way.
That's what Quarantine does.

This virus is just a nasty flu

No, it is not. If you think it is then you are utterly unqualified to tell anyone anything about it.

Why do you do this?
Why do you come here and post nonsense?
Do you like being called a fool?


.

Follow Tony Blair's advice

Is he an epidemiologist?

[charles1948]

I like Bored Chemist.  He doesn't "sugar coat" his replies. Just gives it to you straight, in an incisive scientific manner.
He's often wrong of course. 

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

sending it to some fit volunteers in old age care homes to prove it works

Volunteers in care homes ? Perhaps with some infected blankets ?

[alancalverd]

Well, if this was the very start of the virus then quarantine could work but the virus is everywhere already so its just too late    This virus is just a nasty flu and will fade away once the vaccine starts building up our herd immunity.
Follow Tony Blair's advice quickly before it mutates again.

It's never too late to quarantine. Nor is it ever too early, but our dear government missed that chance because they treated it as a "nasty flu" despite all the evidence.

Follow Tony Blair's advice? Invade Iraq?  Or build a massive dome with nothing inside it?

[Colin2B]

Sir Simon Stevens head of NHS England has just said 22 million people should be vaccinated by the spring (late Apri) , that is everyone aged 50 and over and all vulnerable people in the UK.

It looks as though he has used argument similar to this

Assume phased rollout with final doses administered end April we should have 18m people protected by Oxford vaccine. Not sure what the details of other vaccines are

And added 10m Pfizer doses = 5m protected

Unfortunately this still leaves the working population at risk so until they are vaccinated I can’t see any return to normal.

Early feedback from the frontline indicates that under 65s are becoming the majority of admissions. As @alan pointed out, the older, rather confusing, ONS statistics do show that half of patients were under 50, this is an increasing trend and is causing concern for many hospitals, quote from Bolton is typical:

“The hospital is now seeing an increased number of patients under 65 being admitted, with some in their 40s and 50s, which is a significantly younger age group than at the peak of the pandemic in April and May.”

Or from the FT:

“NHS staff and executives pointed to the very different demands now being made on the health service compared with the early months of the crisis. Ms Cordery said: “People are surviving but they need to be hospitalised for longer. The profile of people with Covid is younger, but they need more treatment.””

Not only treatment, but for many there will be longer term health issues and an increased load on the health services.

[Kryptid]

He's often wrong of course. 

Not in my experience.