Just Googled Tikves Barovo. I'm sure it's very nice - but £20 a bottle? Not THAT good value. I don't think I know anyone who would pay £20 for a bottle of wine. I'm in my forties and firmly wedged in the middle classes - but that's just not how people I know soend their money. This isn't a criticism of those who do, just a reflection that expensive wine must be quite a minority pursuit. I know plenty of people who would pay over £4 frima specialist for a really good bottle of beer, or £30 or £40 plus for a bottle of whiskey, but expensive wine seldom appears on the radar.
If I may speak for SeanT (I might as well, as he has disappeared), I believe what he meant to say was: if you want a properly grade A, top class wine, at a non stupid price, then go for Tikves Barovo.
What £20 buys in in Macedonia would cost you £40 in the best parts of Spain, £60-£80 in a super-Tuscan, and fuck knows in prime France. Over £100? Pointlessly expensive and you are just paying for snobbery and brand value
Macedonia is a very unfashionable wine area with a great and ancient wine making tradition, and their best wines (ignore the average) seem to be phenomenal
Wine-making is improving around the world, at accelerating speed. Ethiopia now makes some rather decent wine in the Rift Valley. Bolivia makes delicious high altitude wines
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
The mortality rate is not 0.5%. As has been mentioned you must compare deaths to the number of recovered, not number of infected. The number of recovered outside China is still very low.
We cannot calculate the mortality rate yet, because the deaths precede recovery and we have little data on non-symptomatic rates. It seems the natural recovery period is 2-3 weeks, so the bulk of those infected have not yet had a chance to recover.
The higher the non-symptomatic rates, the lower the real mortality rate, but also the harder containment becomes if, as suspected, people can be infectious without showing symptoms
Treat all models and numbers associated with this outbreak with great caution this early on.
If a gay man attracts a smaller vote penalty than a woman, Buttigieg should improve on Clinton, all else equal. I am personally not sure which is true, though straight old man seems to be best a.e.=..
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
Because Hillary was the worst candidate of all time, and Pete isn't.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Whoosh.
My point was about hypotheticals. If you had asked an evangelical voter in 2015 whether they'd vote for a man who paid his mistress to have an abortion, they'd have said no.
Yet, they now love him.
As he is following an even more pro evangelical agenda than George W Bush, Buttigieg is a fiscal centrist, social liberal, much like Hillary
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
Just Googled Tikves Barovo. I'm sure it's very nice - but £20 a bottle? Not THAT good value. I don't think I know anyone who would pay £20 for a bottle of wine. I'm in my forties and firmly wedged in the middle classes - but that's just not how people I know soend their money. This isn't a criticism of those who do, just a reflection that expensive wine must be quite a minority pursuit. I know plenty of people who would pay over £4 frima specialist for a really good bottle of beer, or £30 or £40 plus for a bottle of whiskey, but expensive wine seldom appears on the radar.
I don't drink. When I buy wine as gifts, it is usually about the £20 a bottle mark, and red or white or French or Australian or Barolo (which is Italian red). That I think is the problem: it is a faraway country of which we know little.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Whoosh.
My point was about hypotheticals. If you had asked an evangelical voter in 2015 whether they'd vote for a man who paid his mistress to have an abortion, they'd have said no.
Yet, they now love him.
As he is following an even more pro evangelical agenda than George W Bush, Buttigieg is a fiscal centrist, social liberal, much like Hillary
Whoosh * 2.
My point is that hypotheticals don't tell you very much.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
My guess is that corona is relatively benign but extremely contagious. Which makes a death rate of 2% much scarier than normal, if trillions of people are gonna catch it
We don't even know if it is 2% or somewhere close to but hopefully below 10%. The only comfort one can take is (a) slow spread over the last 2 weeks outside of China, and slow spread over the last 2 weeks from China out, and it would be nice if it stays that slow until 2021; (b) we know about it now whereas China did not and it is booming now. Maybe also: (c) extremely contagious but not leading to symptoms for most people means most of the infected people won't get symptoms, but about that, we really have no clue.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
The death/recovered rate at an early stage of an outbreak will be very much higher than later on, just for the fact that recovery lags death. Say you die on day 8 but recovery cannot be declared until day 21, if you calculate cumulative deaths/cumulative recoveries on day 22, you'll have an artificially high number
I thought this was interesting, and maybe also good news about coronavirus. It seems that a large amount of fake news has "spread" because interesting is more contagious than boring. First the live food market origin business, which does not seem to have been further corroborated. Second, this piece in Science is casting doubt on the asymptomatic contagion reports. If stress is bad for your health, why not be hopeful, as long as you aren't putting yourself in harm's way? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong
a) wins NH, thus picking up much-needed momentum going into Nevada, SC and Super Tuesday; or b) finishes comfortably second but waaaaaaay behind Bernie, thus finally jolting the DNC senior bods into action and making Biden and others pull out and endorse him.
Probably a). Because I don't get the impression that the DNC is anywhere near ruthless or organised enough to make b) a winning strategy.
The DNC will be mindful that thus far, for all their failings, both Biden and Sanders have been consistently polling better in a presidential election v Trump than has Buttigieg.
Thanks for that. I agree, there is a case to be made for Buttigieg and that article certainly does its best to make a powerful one, perhaps a bit too much for it to be viewed as entirely objective. The question is whether (as the article asserts), Buttigieg's better ratings in the early states reflect more his underlying appeal once he becomes better known. Might it just be that he has invested massively in those early states to woo a Democratic primary electorate and that disproportionate effort may also be rubbing off on the wider electorate, or possibly that those states are just better demographically for him than others where he polls less well (the converse of Biden)? Also, exactly what knowledge do electors yet have of him even in states where he has focused his attention i.e. Are bigoted electors yet aware that he is gay, because I assume that the saturated campaign ads he is running won't be drawing attention to that. The case also rests on just a handful of polls. But overall, it is interesting and reveals a more nuanced picture than I had assumed, so I have revised my opinion somewhat away from that expressed earlier.
"Romney will vote to convict Trump of abuse of power, the first Republican to support removing the president."
Thank God one of them has a shred of decency left.
Romney is now the Hunt of the GOP to Trump's Boris, hoping it all falls apart so he can be the serious safe pair of hands to take over and sort it out
I think your original comparison with Dominic Grieve was much more accurate.
Since Romney is doing it by irrational private religious belief and there is no mechanism for him to rise higher in a party that he is a pariah since 1994.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
The death/recovered rate at an early stage of an outbreak will be very much higher than later on, just for the fact that recovery lags death. Say you die on day 8 but recovery cannot be declared until day 21, if you calculate cumulative deaths/cumulative recoveries on day 22, you'll have an artificially high number
The better calculation at this stage, rather than relying on cumulative numbers, is to see how many of those infected on day x are alive at day x+21.
"Romney will vote to convict Trump of abuse of power, the first Republican to support removing the president."
Thank God one of them has a shred of decency left.
Romney is now the Hunt of the GOP to Trump's Boris, hoping it all falls apart so he can be the serious safe pair of hands to take over and sort it out
I think your original comparison with Dominic Grieve was much more accurate.
Since Romney is doing it by irrational private religious belief and there is no mechanism for him to rise higher in a party that he is a pariah since 1994.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
My guess is that corona is relatively benign but extremely contagious. Which makes a death rate of 2% much scarier than normal, if trillions of people are gonna catch it
I thought this was interesting, and maybe also good news about coronavirus. It seems that a large amount of fake news has "spread" because interesting is more contagious than boring. First the live food market origin business, which does not seem to have been further corroborated. Second, this piece in Science is casting doubt on the asymptomatic contagion reports. If stress is bad for your health, why not be hopeful, as long as you aren't putting yourself in harm's way? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong
Casting doubt on the veracity of this one study, not asymptomatic transmission in general.
The fact that the paper got it wrong doesn’t mean transmission from asymptomatic people doesn’t occur. Fauci [ director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], for one, still believes it does. "This evening I telephoned one of my colleagues in China who is a highly respected infectious diseases scientist and health official," he says. "He said that he is convinced that there is asymptomatic infection and that some asymptomatic people are transmitting infection."
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Whoosh.
My point was about hypotheticals. If you had asked an evangelical voter in 2015 whether they'd vote for a man who paid his mistress to have an abortion, they'd have said no.
Yet, they now love him.
As he is following an even more pro evangelical agenda than George W Bush, Buttigieg is a fiscal centrist, social liberal, much like Hillary
Whoosh * 2.
My point is that hypotheticals don't tell you very much.
We all know that except the person you're talking to.
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
My guess is that corona is relatively benign but extremely contagious. Which makes a death rate of 2% much scarier than normal, if trillions of people are gonna catch it
We don't even know if it is 2% or somewhere close to but hopefully below 10%. The only comfort one can take is (a) slow spread over the last 2 weeks outside of China, and slow spread over the last 2 weeks from China out, and it would be nice if it stays that slow until 2021; (b) we know about it now whereas China did not and it is booming now. Maybe also: (c) extremely contagious but not leading to symptoms for most people means most of the infected people won't get symptoms, but about that, we really have no clue.
That 2 commentators on this website already caught something like that disease, that rings bells.
My point is that hypotheticals don't tell you very much.
Indeed, as this brilliant piece on PB pointed out the flaws with hypothetical polling.
Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere. This piece I wrote back in 2018 explains the systemic flaws with hypothetical polls, and nothing has changed.
I thought this was interesting, and maybe also good news about coronavirus. It seems that a large amount of fake news has "spread" because interesting is more contagious than boring. First the live food market origin business, which does not seem to have been further corroborated. Second, this piece in Science is casting doubt on the asymptomatic contagion reports. If stress is bad for your health, why not be hopeful, as long as you aren't putting yourself in harm's way? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong
Casting doubt on the veracity of this one study, not asymptomatic transmission in general.
The fact that the paper got it wrong doesn’t mean transmission from asymptomatic people doesn’t occur. Fauci, for one, still believes it does. "This evening I telephoned one of my colleagues in China who is a highly respected infectious diseases scientist and health official," he says. "He said that he is convinced that there is asymptomatic infection and that some asymptomatic people are transmitting infection."
Sure, but as the article says, we should upweight out beliefs about how important symptomatic transmission is, especially given the messed-up media situation and the official denials in China until about two weeks ago.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
The death/recovered rate at an early stage of an outbreak will be very much higher than later on, just for the fact that recovery lags death. Say you die on day 8 but recovery cannot be declared until day 21, if you calculate cumulative deaths/cumulative recoveries on day 22, you'll have an artificially high number
The better calculation at this stage, rather than relying on cumulative numbers, is to see how many of those infected on day x are alive at day x+21.
I agree, but not easy to calculate on current data.
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
When I read this, I though "Oh, so Mitt isn't his real first name. I wonder what is"
If Ms Collins is Primaried, then the Republicans can kiss goodbye to Maine. They would be incredibly dumb to remove her.
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
Those and Feinstein (D - California).
Nope that's the whole list.
No California Democrat is going to vote favourably for Republicans on any partisan issue.
We can argue about subgroups like the Paul-Lee group or the Bernie-Warren group, but only 6 Senators are practically wobbly for their Party and the Primaries will keep some of those 6 in line.
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
I would have thought you could add Rand Paul to that list. R-Kentucky
New figures seen by the Guardian show that 4,024 allegations led to guilty verdicts at court after police investigations since 2014 into decades-old child sex offences.
Officers say hundreds of offenders, including teachers, religious workers, youth and care workers, thought they had got away with their crimes. Many victims have been traumatised, and some have killed themselves or been left with severe mental health problems.
Police believe the figures, which show that 35% of all allegations led to guilty verdicts, demonstrate that inquiries into non-recent sexual abuse are not “spaffing money up the wall”, as Boris Johnson last year claimed. Labour said Johnson should apologise to victims....
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
I would have thought you could add Rand Paul to that list. R-Kentucky
Fuck no. Rand Paul is so far up Trump's arse you'd need a rescue team.
He has spent the entire Senate proceeding outing the and effectively threatening the whistle-blower.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
My guess is that corona is relatively benign but extremely contagious. Which makes a death rate of 2% much scarier than normal, if trillions of people are gonna catch it
We don't even know if it is 2% or somewhere close to but hopefully below 10%. The only comfort one can take is (a) slow spread over the last 2 weeks outside of China, and slow spread over the last 2 weeks from China out, and it would be nice if it stays that slow until 2021; (b) we know about it now whereas China did not and it is booming now. Maybe also: (c) extremely contagious but not leading to symptoms for most people means most of the infected people won't get symptoms, but about that, we really have no clue.
That 2 commentators on this website already caught something like that disease, that rings bells.
The reason it is so infections is that a lot of diseases start like that disease. If people just fell over with pneumonia on day one, obviously someone would have noticed faster. It is also regrettably true that some commenters on this website are fiction authors and occasional fantasists.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
Don't believe those numbers mean that or legit for a second.
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
It would have to kill everyone it touched, and fast. There is substantial evidence from non-China hospitals that the mortality rate is well below 99 per cent so far.
My guess is that corona is relatively benign but extremely contagious. Which makes a death rate of 2% much scarier than normal, if trillions of people are gonna catch it
A mortality rate of over 1% is not relatively benign.
It’s an order of magnitude worse than that of the 1918 flu.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Whoosh.
My point was about hypotheticals. If you had asked an evangelical voter in 2015 whether they'd vote for a man who paid his mistress to have an abortion, they'd have said no.
Yet, they now love him.
As he is following an even more pro evangelical agenda than George W Bush, Buttigieg is a fiscal centrist, social liberal, much like Hillary
Whoosh * 2.
My point is that hypotheticals don't tell you very much.
I did not mention anything about hypotheticals, I simply pointed out Buttigieg has the same ideology as Hillary did on most issues
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
When I read this, I though "Oh, so Mitt isn't his real first name. I wonder what is"
If Ms Collins is Primaried, then the Republicans can kiss goodbye to Maine. They would be incredibly dumb to remove her.
Collins and McSally might lose even if Trump wins re-election, but if Trump loses they definitely lose too.
They want to stay as Senators, and for that step 1 is winning their Primary and step 2 is help Trump win their State.
My point is that hypotheticals don't tell you very much.
Indeed, as this brilliant piece on PB pointed out the flaws with hypothetical polling.
Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere. This piece I wrote back in 2018 explains the systemic flaws with hypothetical polls, and nothing has changed.
My point is that hypotheticals don't tell you very much.
Indeed, as this brilliant piece on PB pointed out the flaws with hypothetical polling.
Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere. This piece I wrote back in 2018 explains the systemic flaws with hypothetical polls, and nothing has changed.
I did not mention anything about hypotheticals, I simply pointed out Buttigieg has the same ideology as Hillary did on most issues
Right, I understand that.
But the way I think discourse normally works is that one person says something, and then the other says something in some way related to the thing the first person said.
Otherwise it get's very confusing:
Person One: Hey, what's the weather like outside? Person Two: That's the thing about the Swiss. Too bloody organised. Person One: Yeah sure, but I was just wondering, have you been out lately? Do I need to wear a coat. Person Two: The Swiss. They never wear coats. It's why they never win wars.
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
When I read this, I though "Oh, so Mitt isn't his real first name. I wonder what is"
If Ms Collins is Primaried, then the Republicans can kiss goodbye to Maine. They would be incredibly dumb to remove her.
Collins and McSally might lose even if Trump wins re-election, but if Trump loses they definitely lose too.
They want to stay as Senators, and for that step 1 is winning their Primary and step 2 is help Trump win their State.
Agree 100%. But if I was Trump and the Republican Senate leadership, I would be backing off Collins as much as possible and allowing her to demonstrate her independence.
I certainly wouldn't be encouraging a Primary challenge.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
The mortality rate is not 0.5%. As has been mentioned you must compare deaths to the number of recovered, not number of infected. The number of recovered outside China is still very low.
We cannot calculate the mortality rate yet, because the deaths precede recovery and we have little data on non-symptomatic rates. It seems the natural recovery period is 2-3 weeks, so the bulk of those infected have not yet had a chance to recover.
The higher the non-symptomatic rates, the lower the real mortality rate, but also the harder containment becomes if, as suspected, people can be infectious without showing symptoms
Treat all models and numbers associated with this outbreak with great caution this early on.
The other thing is that mild symptoms will be easy to dismiss as due to a normal cold/flu virus. This is more the case for China, than for other countries where people who have recently travelled to China will tend to be more suspicious of such symptoms, because of the coincidence.
This would lead to a higher Chinese death rate because fewer of the mild cases will be picked up in their numbers, compared to the rest of the world.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
When I read this, I though "Oh, so Mitt isn't his real first name. I wonder what is"
If Ms Collins is Primaried, then the Republicans can kiss goodbye to Maine. They would be incredibly dumb to remove her.
Collins and McSally might lose even if Trump wins re-election, but if Trump loses they definitely lose too.
They want to stay as Senators, and for that step 1 is winning their Primary and step 2 is help Trump win their State.
Agree 100%. But if I was Trump and the Republican Senate leadership, I would be backing off Collins as much as possible and allowing her to demonstrate her independence.
I certainly wouldn't be encouraging a Primary challenge.
For her to vote to convict the Party Leader that has 94% approval among Party Voters in an Election Year in front of National TV is political suicide for Collins, she will never do it.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
Except she did beat Trump 48% to 46%...
Irrelevant and you know it. She did not beat him in any way that matters. She might as well have beaten him in a game of basketball for all it matters.
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
When I read this, I though "Oh, so Mitt isn't his real first name. I wonder what is"
If Ms Collins is Primaried, then the Republicans can kiss goodbye to Maine. They would be incredibly dumb to remove her.
Collins and McSally might lose even if Trump wins re-election, but if Trump loses they definitely lose too.
They want to stay as Senators, and for that step 1 is winning their Primary and step 2 is help Trump win their State.
Agree 100%. But if I was Trump and the Republican Senate leadership, I would be backing off Collins as much as possible and allowing her to demonstrate her independence.
I certainly wouldn't be encouraging a Primary challenge.
For her to vote to convict the Party Leader that has 94% approval among Party Voters in an Election Year in front of National TV is political suicide for Collins, she will never do it.
Yes, agree. The most she could probably do would be abstain.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
Except she did beat Trump 48% to 46%...
Irrelevant and you know it. She did not beat him in any way that matters. She might as well have beaten him in a game of basketball for all it matters.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump, and you know it!
Fake Tweet Generator is a rather simple to use tool that allows the user to create Twitter conversations or single posts that can imitate any celebrity, political figure, religious figure or regular person he/she so chooses. With a variety of options to enhance the overall view and layout of the tweet(s), the post or posts can be as simple or deep as the user chooses to make. Options for editing the conversation or single post include displaying the names or Twitter IDs of the persons the user wishes to involve, displaying full names (if different from their Twitter handle), custom avatars (profile pictures), custom colors (to imitate someones Twitter page), custom background images (again, to imitate someones Twitter page), names of people who (fake) retweet the posts and so on. It also allows the user to edit whether or not it displays that the Tweet was posted via a Twitter client, or if left blank, the web
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
Jeff Flake and Dean Heller are not Republican Senators any more. Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties. Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
When I read this, I though "Oh, so Mitt isn't his real first name. I wonder what is"
If Ms Collins is Primaried, then the Republicans can kiss goodbye to Maine. They would be incredibly dumb to remove her.
Collins and McSally might lose even if Trump wins re-election, but if Trump loses they definitely lose too.
They want to stay as Senators, and for that step 1 is winning their Primary and step 2 is help Trump win their State.
Agree 100%. But if I was Trump and the Republican Senate leadership, I would be backing off Collins as much as possible and allowing her to demonstrate her independence.
I certainly wouldn't be encouraging a Primary challenge.
For her to vote to convict the Party Leader that has 94% approval among Party Voters in an Election Year in front of National TV is political suicide for Collins, she will never do it.
Yes, agree. The most she could probably do would be abstain.
And get attacked by both sides?
Manchin could have done that since W.Virginia registered Democrats are pro-Trump anyway. But Manchin is probably going to either retire by 2024 or run for Governor, so he might not care that much about relection.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
The mortality rate is not 0.5%. As has been mentioned you must compare deaths to the number of recovered, not number of infected. The number of recovered outside China is still very low.
We cannot calculate the mortality rate yet, because the deaths precede recovery and we have little data on non-symptomatic rates. It seems the natural recovery period is 2-3 weeks, so the bulk of those infected have not yet had a chance to recover.
The higher the non-symptomatic rates, the lower the real mortality rate, but also the harder containment becomes if, as suspected, people can be infectious without showing symptoms
Treat all models and numbers associated with this outbreak with great caution this early on.
The other thing is that mild symptoms will be easy to dismiss as due to a normal cold/flu virus. This is more the case for China, than for other countries where people who have recently travelled to China will tend to be more suspicious of such symptoms, because of the coincidence.
This would lead to a higher Chinese death rate because fewer of the mild cases will be picked up in their numbers, compared to the rest of the world.
Won't the people in China with mild flu like symptoms be equally suspicious of the coincidence that they are actually IN China which is the known epicentre of the disease?
You might be right for the wrong reason though, that people in China don't get diagnosed because 1. they think they obviously *have* got it anyway and 2. hospitals are so busy that if you go for diagnosis you just get put in a holding tank and 3. if you are diagnosed you are effectively imprisoned, so why not self diagnose and self quarantine?
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
The mortality rate is not 0.5%. As has been mentioned you must compare deaths to the number of recovered, not number of infected. The number of recovered outside China is still very low.
We cannot calculate the mortality rate yet, because the deaths precede recovery and we have little data on non-symptomatic rates. It seems the natural recovery period is 2-3 weeks, so the bulk of those infected have not yet had a chance to recover.
The higher the non-symptomatic rates, the lower the real mortality rate, but also the harder containment becomes if, as suspected, people can be infectious without showing symptoms
Treat all models and numbers associated with this outbreak with great caution this early on.
The other thing is that mild symptoms will be easy to dismiss as due to a normal cold/flu virus. This is more the case for China, than for other countries where people who have recently travelled to China will tend to be more suspicious of such symptoms, because of the coincidence.
This would lead to a higher Chinese death rate because fewer of the mild cases will be picked up in their numbers, compared to the rest of the world.
Indeed, numbers are not useless at this stage, but they have to be handled with extreme caution. We have no idea what percentage of the population are asymptomatic, and how many experience only mild symptoms easily confused with the common cold or flu, and hence are never presented to health officials and so are not included in the stats.
We are bad at doing whole of population serology after the event, too, to examine exactly what percentage of the population have been infected, compared to those diagnosed, those sick, and those dead.
Back in 2008, I remember the Clinton team being apoplectic that Obama had been organised and won things like the Wyoming caucus.
Clinton, people forget, won the popular vote against Obama. He just knew how to organise a campaign, and how to win.
We're seeing a similar thing here. Buttigigeg knows how to win this. He knows where to send his people to maximise his delegates. I have little doubt that he'll be just as well organised in Nevada and in other caucus states.
Back in 2008, I remember the Clinton team being apoplectic that Obama had been organised and won things like the Wyoming caucus.
Clinton, people forget, won the popular vote against Obama. He just knew how to organise a campaign, and how to win.
We're seeing a similar thing here. Buttigigeg knows how to win this. He knows where to send his people to maximise his delegates. I have little doubt that he'll be just as well organised in Nevada and in other caucus states.
The Iowa Caucus this year is an undisputable Clown Circus Show. After all this and they still finding major mistakes in their Count.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
Except she did beat Trump 48% to 46%...
Not in the Electoral College which is all that matters
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
Except she did beat Trump 48% to 46%...
Not in the Electoral College which is all that matters
It isn't all that matters if you claim to be the voice of the people against the political elite. Trump won office after a political elite overruled the popular vote.
Back in 2008, I remember the Clinton team being apoplectic that Obama had been organised and won things like the Wyoming caucus.
Clinton, people forget, won the popular vote against Obama. He just knew how to organise a campaign, and how to win.
We're seeing a similar thing here. Buttigigeg knows how to win this. He knows where to send his people to maximise his delegates. I have little doubt that he'll be just as well organised in Nevada and in other caucus states.
I guess that is what you expect from a McKinsey consultant.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
The mortality rate is not 0.5%. As has been mentioned you must compare deaths to the number of recovered, not number of infected. The number of recovered outside China is still very low.
We cannot calculate the mortality rate yet, because the deaths precede recovery and we have little data on non-symptomatic rates. It seems the natural recovery period is 2-3 weeks, so the bulk of those infected have not yet had a chance to recover.
The higher the non-symptomatic rates, the lower the real mortality rate, but also the harder containment becomes if, as suspected, people can be infectious without showing symptoms
Treat all models and numbers associated with this outbreak with great caution this early on.
The other thing is that mild symptoms will be easy to dismiss as due to a normal cold/flu virus. This is more the case for China, than for other countries where people who have recently travelled to China will tend to be more suspicious of such symptoms, because of the coincidence.
This would lead to a higher Chinese death rate because fewer of the mild cases will be picked up in their numbers, compared to the rest of the world.
Won't the people in China with mild flu like symptoms be equally suspicious of the coincidence that they are actually IN China which is the known epicentre of the disease?
You might be right for the wrong reason though, that people in China don't get diagnosed because 1. they think they obviously *have* got it anyway and 2. hospitals are so busy that if you go for diagnosis you just get put in a holding tank and 3. if you are diagnosed you are effectively imprisoned, so why not self diagnose and self quarantine?
And 4. if you're in doubt, you actually increase your risk on contracting the disease by visiting a healthcare facility.
A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.
But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
While I can believe official stats might be falsified I doubt a digital editor at tencent would have the inside track on the true numbers. In that case both sets of stats would be garbage.
FWIW, the article says the figures were updated "moments later". Actually the new table is dated nearly two days later, is a different screen with different text and slightly different fonts.
Back in 2008, I remember the Clinton team being apoplectic that Obama had been organised and won things like the Wyoming caucus.
Clinton, people forget, won the popular vote against Obama. He just knew how to organise a campaign, and how to win.
We're seeing a similar thing here. Buttigigeg knows how to win this. He knows where to send his people to maximise his delegates. I have little doubt that he'll be just as well organised in Nevada and in other caucus states.
The other thing the Obama team did well was prioritize states, ie:
Put as much money as is necessary to a winner take all state you can win, put anything left over in to 'Proportional' states. Ignore all the Winner take all, that you will lose anyway.
The Clinton Team seemed to take an approach of:
See what state is next and throw what money you have at it.
it is ironic that in two important elections she won the most votes* but lost the election because she/her team could not do election maths.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
Except she did beat Trump 48% to 46%...
Not in the Electoral College which is all that matters
It isn't all that matters if you claim to be the voice of the people against the political elite. Trump won office after a political elite overruled the popular vote.
Back in 2008, I remember the Clinton team being apoplectic that Obama had been organised and won things like the Wyoming caucus.
Clinton, people forget, won the popular vote against Obama. He just knew how to organise a campaign, and how to win.
We're seeing a similar thing here. Buttigigeg knows how to win this. He knows where to send his people to maximise his delegates. I have little doubt that he'll be just as well organised in Nevada and in other caucus states.
I guess that is what you expect from a McKinsey consultant.
It's what you expect from a competent candidate who wants to win.
Comments
269 cured seems like total bullshit. Nearly 100 dead for every cured person - not a chance on earth.
(Rhetorical question.)
The higher the non-symptomatic rates, the lower the real mortality rate, but also the harder containment becomes if, as suspected, people can be infectious without showing symptoms
Treat all models and numbers associated with this outbreak with great caution this early on.
"Romney will vote to convict Trump of abuse of power, the first Republican to support removing the president."
Thank God one of them has a shred of decency left.
Lee and Crapo maybe Mormon but are long term loyal party members.
Basically there are only these Senators who are not solid partisans:
R.Romney
R.Collins
R.Murkowski
R.McSally
D.Manchin
D.Sinema.
Of those only Collins and McSally are facing a Republican Primary, so basically it was always going to be down to maybe Manchin and Romney switching parties.
Murkowski is an Independent who caucuses with Republicans.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1225150437466214401
My point is that hypotheticals don't tell you very much.
Since Romney is doing it by irrational private religious belief and there is no mechanism for him to rise higher in a party that he is a pariah since 1994.
Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere. This piece I wrote back in 2018 explains the systemic flaws with hypothetical polls, and nothing has changed.
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/01/your-regular-reminder-that-hypothetical-polls-can-be-as-accurate-as-an-american-war-film/
If Ms Collins is Primaried, then the Republicans can kiss goodbye to Maine. They would be incredibly dumb to remove her.
No California Democrat is going to vote favourably for Republicans on any partisan issue.
We can argue about subgroups like the Paul-Lee group or the Bernie-Warren group, but only 6 Senators are practically wobbly for their Party and the Primaries will keep some of those 6 in line.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/05/police-uncovering-epidemic-of-child-abuse-in-1970s-and-80s
police say they are uncovering a hidden “epidemic” of paedophile abuse in the 1970s and 1980s, with thousands of allegations leading to convictions against people who abused their power to attack children.
New figures seen by the Guardian show that 4,024 allegations led to guilty verdicts at court after police investigations since 2014 into decades-old child sex offences.
Officers say hundreds of offenders, including teachers, religious workers, youth and care workers, thought they had got away with their crimes. Many victims have been traumatised, and some have killed themselves or been left with severe mental health problems.
Police believe the figures, which show that 35% of all allegations led to guilty verdicts, demonstrate that inquiries into non-recent sexual abuse are not “spaffing money up the wall”, as Boris Johnson last year claimed. Labour said Johnson should apologise to victims....
He has spent the entire Senate proceeding outing the and effectively threatening the whistle-blower.
White House talking points shattered.
It’s an order of magnitude worse than that of the 1918 flu.
They want to stay as Senators, and for that step 1 is winning their Primary and step 2 is help Trump win their State.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
https://www.aceodds.com/bet-calculator/odds-converter.html
But the way I think discourse normally works is that one person says something, and then the other says something in some way related to the thing the first person said.
Otherwise it get's very confusing:
Person One: Hey, what's the weather like outside?
Person Two: That's the thing about the Swiss. Too bloody organised.
Person One: Yeah sure, but I was just wondering, have you been out lately? Do I need to wear a coat.
Person Two: The Swiss. They never wear coats. It's why they never win wars.
I certainly wouldn't be encouraging a Primary challenge.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html
We're now up to 85% and Buttigieg has now overtaken Sanders in the second round actual voters number, while increasing his SDE lead from 1.6% to 2.4%.
There's now no split in who can claim victory. It is now Buttigieg all the way.
Is my article going up tomorrow or Friday please?
This would lead to a higher Chinese death rate because fewer of the mild cases will be picked up in their numbers, compared to the rest of the world.
@MikeSmithson
https://twitter.com/iowademocrats/status/1225170253778444291
Manchin could have done that since W.Virginia registered Democrats are pro-Trump anyway.
But Manchin is probably going to either retire by 2024 or run for Governor, so he might not care that much about relection.
You might be right for the wrong reason though, that people in China don't get diagnosed because 1. they think they obviously *have* got it anyway and 2. hospitals are so busy that if you go for diagnosis you just get put in a holding tank and 3. if you are diagnosed you are effectively imprisoned, so why not self diagnose and self quarantine?
We are bad at doing whole of population serology after the event, too, to examine exactly what percentage of the population have been infected, compared to those diagnosed, those sick, and those dead.
Don't know if that helps.
Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=iowa+caucus+results&oq=iowa+caucus+result
Politico: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/
https://twitter.com/kkondik/status/1225171958058237954
https://twitter.com/iowademocrats/status/1225170253778444291
Can they lower their credibility even more?
Cue the Clown Music.
Clinton, people forget, won the popular vote against Obama. He just knew how to organise a campaign, and how to win.
We're seeing a similar thing here. Buttigigeg knows how to win this. He knows where to send his people to maximise his delegates. I have little doubt that he'll be just as well organised in Nevada and in other caucus states.
https://twitter.com/lib_crusher/status/1225167351617712128
As I said, cue the Clown Music.
Of the 14 states with caucuses in 2008, Ms Clinton only won one - New Mexico.
Every other one was won by the candidate who knew that he had to maximise delegates, not popular vote.
After all this and they still finding major mistakes in their Count.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225174713992990721?s=09
FWIW, the article says the figures were updated "moments later". Actually the new table is dated nearly two days later, is a different screen with different text and slightly different fonts.
That's a big call.
Put as much money as is necessary to a winner take all state you can win,
put anything left over in to 'Proportional' states.
Ignore all the Winner take all, that you will lose anyway.
The Clinton Team seemed to take an approach of:
See what state is next and throw what money you have at it.
it is ironic that in two important elections she won the most votes* but lost the election because she/her team could not do election maths.
Depending on how you count it.
And that's just the correction from a single county.
Imagine if there are other similar errors, with a state Party that disorganised it's possible.
CR, I think it only works if you elide the 2 edges, so boot-edgedge.
I think it's a YouTube job for me - see an expert do it.