![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Grumpy Grampy from Tunbridge Wells
Jul. 23rd, 2009 01:09 pmIt's not as if I can't think of anything to write about; it's just that all of the things that I do want to write about look as if they will make me seem to to "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells".
First it was this (UK) administration's disgraceful performance on Tuesday, when Ministries competed with themselves to put out absolutely horrific news just before (as in, a few minutes before) the minister went off on his or her 76-day summer break.
Unsurprisingly, first prize went to the Treasury, where figures that had been ready for weeks had had their release deliberately delayed because, well, they were just such poo that issuing them at any time would have been disastrous. For once the opposition had the field all to themselves -- Darling was off. Probably the worst number of a sequence of horrific numbers was the news that Government revenue fell £32bn in the financial year to March 31, and the Treasury expects the Government deficit to double to £175bn, or 12.4 percent of economic output, in the current year.
Looking at the bar charts showing the impact of the recession on the economy over the past 18 months, it makes 1990-91 look like a tea party. So, why don't things feel as bad? presumably it's because there has been some kind of functional shift in the structure of the economy, or perhaps the combination of low mortgage rates for those on trackers and the wild distributing of £200bn into the economy via Quantitative Easing has had a hidden effect.
Second part of Mr Grumpland was the news this morning that a hospital had sent a girl home with swine flu, only for it to turn out that she had meningitis. When a misunderstanding of risk and probability leads to unnecessary endangerment to life, I fear that I get annoyed.
Gemma Drury of Derbyshire was diagnosed with swine flu over the phone and by a doctor who visited her home, but she was subsequently admitted to Rotherham General Hospital in South Yorkshire with meningitis. She was diagnosed on her second visit to Chesterfield Royal Hospital in Derbyshire.
This in itself is worrying enough, but it was the explanation of the hospital that I found most disturbing. A spokesperson for the Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Trust said:
The problem here is the faulty logic used to justify the Trust's actions. Let's take the two sets of symptoms:
Symptom A (first hospital visit): Consistent with Swine Flu and meningitis. Patient taking tablets for swine flu
Symptom B (second hospital visit): Only consistent with meningitis.
So, the question has to be asked, how does the hospital's reaction to symptoms consistent with either swine flu or meningitis (or, I suppose, if you are the unluckiest person in the world, both) justify a diagnosis of swine flu? The answer, I assume, is that it was "more likely".
But here there is a serious matter of risk and reward. The risk if the patient has meningitis is immeasurably greater. And, here's the catch, the existence of swine flu in the UK does not lessen the probability of meningitis.
The system of diagnosis here seems to be that, if there is a slightly bad disease going around, then we will assume that it isn't that much worse disease that has similar symptoms.
+++++++++++++
IG Index released their figures this week and revealed that Foreign Exchange trading had been the huge growth area over the past year or so. This was interesting. When I opened my Finspreads account it was solely to trade FX, but apparently most trading in those days was on equities, or indices of equities. These days, FX is the biz.
The interesting thing here is what we might call the "Mrs Watanabe effect", that being, the impact that Japanese retail investors had on the Australian exchange rate a couple of years ago. With Japanese rates at zero, and healthy returns available in the Antipodes, the Watanabes by the million put their money into Australian investments. This had the effect of pushing the Australian dollar up (thus increasing the paper gain and feeding the Watanabe "invest abroad" frenzy).
The question is, how much is the trading of these retail gamblers with IG Index affecting the market? The instinctive response might be "not at all", but if there are a few hundred thousand retail players, then their combined actions would surely equal that of at least a medium-sized proprietary trader. Ahh, you might say, but the retail players won't all be going the same way at once! Indeed, indeed. But it would still be nice to know what's driving them? If, for example, they are all "follow the trend" players, then that would lead to greater swings than normal. If, on the other hand, they are "range traders" then that would cause shifts to be smaller than expected (or, rather, rebounds to happen earlier and earlier until you get a massive funadmental break-out).
I shall be watching the charts to see if I can glean any clues about this significant alteration in the "players at the game".
__________
First it was this (UK) administration's disgraceful performance on Tuesday, when Ministries competed with themselves to put out absolutely horrific news just before (as in, a few minutes before) the minister went off on his or her 76-day summer break.
Unsurprisingly, first prize went to the Treasury, where figures that had been ready for weeks had had their release deliberately delayed because, well, they were just such poo that issuing them at any time would have been disastrous. For once the opposition had the field all to themselves -- Darling was off. Probably the worst number of a sequence of horrific numbers was the news that Government revenue fell £32bn in the financial year to March 31, and the Treasury expects the Government deficit to double to £175bn, or 12.4 percent of economic output, in the current year.
Looking at the bar charts showing the impact of the recession on the economy over the past 18 months, it makes 1990-91 look like a tea party. So, why don't things feel as bad? presumably it's because there has been some kind of functional shift in the structure of the economy, or perhaps the combination of low mortgage rates for those on trackers and the wild distributing of £200bn into the economy via Quantitative Easing has had a hidden effect.
Second part of Mr Grumpland was the news this morning that a hospital had sent a girl home with swine flu, only for it to turn out that she had meningitis. When a misunderstanding of risk and probability leads to unnecessary endangerment to life, I fear that I get annoyed.
Gemma Drury of Derbyshire was diagnosed with swine flu over the phone and by a doctor who visited her home, but she was subsequently admitted to Rotherham General Hospital in South Yorkshire with meningitis. She was diagnosed on her second visit to Chesterfield Royal Hospital in Derbyshire.
This in itself is worrying enough, but it was the explanation of the hospital that I found most disturbing. A spokesperson for the Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Trust said:
"At her initial visit to our emergency department, Gemma reported flu-like symptoms and had been taking antivirals prescribed for suspected swine flu.
"On examination her symptoms were indicative of this and she received treatment. She responded well and was discharged with advice.
"On return Gemma's condition had deteriorated with symptoms pointing to meningitis.
"She was immediately diagnosed and treatment commenced straight away, after which she was admitted to critical care."
The problem here is the faulty logic used to justify the Trust's actions. Let's take the two sets of symptoms:
Symptom A (first hospital visit): Consistent with Swine Flu and meningitis. Patient taking tablets for swine flu
Symptom B (second hospital visit): Only consistent with meningitis.
So, the question has to be asked, how does the hospital's reaction to symptoms consistent with either swine flu or meningitis (or, I suppose, if you are the unluckiest person in the world, both) justify a diagnosis of swine flu? The answer, I assume, is that it was "more likely".
But here there is a serious matter of risk and reward. The risk if the patient has meningitis is immeasurably greater. And, here's the catch, the existence of swine flu in the UK does not lessen the probability of meningitis.
The system of diagnosis here seems to be that, if there is a slightly bad disease going around, then we will assume that it isn't that much worse disease that has similar symptoms.
+++++++++++++
IG Index released their figures this week and revealed that Foreign Exchange trading had been the huge growth area over the past year or so. This was interesting. When I opened my Finspreads account it was solely to trade FX, but apparently most trading in those days was on equities, or indices of equities. These days, FX is the biz.
The interesting thing here is what we might call the "Mrs Watanabe effect", that being, the impact that Japanese retail investors had on the Australian exchange rate a couple of years ago. With Japanese rates at zero, and healthy returns available in the Antipodes, the Watanabes by the million put their money into Australian investments. This had the effect of pushing the Australian dollar up (thus increasing the paper gain and feeding the Watanabe "invest abroad" frenzy).
The question is, how much is the trading of these retail gamblers with IG Index affecting the market? The instinctive response might be "not at all", but if there are a few hundred thousand retail players, then their combined actions would surely equal that of at least a medium-sized proprietary trader. Ahh, you might say, but the retail players won't all be going the same way at once! Indeed, indeed. But it would still be nice to know what's driving them? If, for example, they are all "follow the trend" players, then that would lead to greater swings than normal. If, on the other hand, they are "range traders" then that would cause shifts to be smaller than expected (or, rather, rebounds to happen earlier and earlier until you get a massive funadmental break-out).
I shall be watching the charts to see if I can glean any clues about this significant alteration in the "players at the game".
__________
