On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I normally shy away from this kind of discussion, but that's just too interesting a statistic to gnore. Are 90% of giraffes gay? Are there any studies as to the incidence of homosexuality amongst giraffes, and how is it assessed? If 90% is wrong, then what is the actual number? Goddamn it, this is the kind of thing that gets stuck in my head - the concept, that is, not the (redacted). It's the mental equivalent of an earworm. Aaargh!
You just had to make me look, didncha?
'Giraffes. Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax.'
You just know I'm going to ask for a number on this. Expressed as a percentage of all giraffe courtship/sexual behaviour, what is the proportion of such behaviour that is same-sex?
According to that link in one study it was “up to 94%” but that was mounting so could just have been an expression of dominance
At any time 5% are involved in “non-combative necking”
But the longest subsection is on homosexual behaviour in bats. I mean WTF?!
Good grief. Well, I learn something new every day and no mistake. Thank you.
Corbyn was unpopular, Labour were in a lose/lose with Brexit, so they threw everything into the mix policywise.
The problem now is all that superficial polling that suggests the individual policies are popular. They're the equivalent of asking someone if they'd like an ice cream, without telling them the cost, or the fact that they have to climb a hill to get it, or that it's marmite flavoured.
The weird thing was they had one achievable policy that would have made a difference - forgiving student debt - and they ignored it entirely.
The policy on student debt ("dealing with it" i think was the wording), seemed to be the cause of the scattershot approach this time.
It appeared to work, with a few Uni towns going Labour (although it's quite likely that it was more the young skew of Labour voters that did that) - so the WASPI stuff, free broadband, train price discounts, all looked like bribes aimed at nibbling a little more out of the Tory vote. The problem is that if you promise everything to everyone you look like a bunch of amateurs, and fewer people believe it's possible to deliver.
Hopefully there's time before the next election to revert to a clean slate and work out what's important to people, and what can actually be achieved.
The race remains a shambles with too many candidates. In particular the moderate vote is split between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden (who is hanging around like a bad smell) and, at least on paper, Bloomberg. This is giving Sanders wins with modest shares of the vote. The field needs winnowed and it needs it now.
The likes of Steyer is just another self indulgent distraction but Bloomberg is in danger of becoming the same. You cannot run a virtual campaign indefinitely. You need to get down and dirty, test your popularity and organisation, compete for votes and take part in the debates.
Klobuchar is the one in the right age bracket, adequately experienced and not geriatric but as I was saying yesterday her and Buttigieg are fighting for the same smallish pools of voters and in danger of knocking each other out.
Maybe being picky here but it doesn't need to be winnowed *now*, it needs to be winnowed by Super Tuesday, 2 weeks from now.
The problem is that I guess a contested convention can be a little bit self-fulfilling; For example, say you're KLOBUCHAR and your SURGE ends up fizzling out in NV and SC. At that point your campaign is basically hopeless. However if you keep going until Super Tuesday you'll at least get a bunch of delegates from Minnesota, who you may be able to trade for a job, maybe even the VP spot. What have you got to lose?
Your endorsement pre-Super Tuesday, when the other moderates are desperate to reach 15% in as many CDs as possible, is much more valuable than post-, when your bunch of 10% finishes resulted in wasted moderate votes.
That last point is crucial I think. My favourite analogy for that is thinking that if someone likes a spoonful of sugar in their tea, they're going to LOVE it when you tip in the whole 500g bag...
Here's how to do this. Thought experiment -
GE19. Assume it's all the same (Get Brexit Done, "Boris", LDs Revoke, Lab Ref2 etc) apart from 2 things. (1) Labour has a moderate Leader. (2) Labour has moderate policies.
What's the result?
I'll go first. LDs about the same. Lab 25 better. Con majority of 30.
Corbyn and Corbynism cost 25 seats.
LDs would have done much better without fear of Corbyn.
The trouble is that this offers the LibDems a handy excuse to avoid facing the issues within their own party and campaign in the same way that blaming it all on Brexit allows Labour to duck the questions about Corbyn and anti-semitism. The LibDems can and should have done a lot better, Corbyn or not, and like Labour they need to work hard to try and learn the right lessons.
Did Andrew Sabisky super-forecast his own resignation/sacking?
Cummings' diagnosis of the civil service's problems is compelling, but his solutions are much less so.
He wants to hand the running of the machine over to mathematicians and scientists.
Trouble is, the global financials markets did something very similar in the run up to 2008. and it was the products designed and operated by such people that crashed the system.
In some cases the mass of derivatives a given bank had was so complex it was reportedly exceeedingtly difficult to determine its risk profile, even for mathematicians.
Its fine to upskill in terms of numeracy in the civil service, but its not a panacea and there are risks.
Compelling in a similar manner to Marx’s critique of capitalism... And similarly deficient in realistic remedies.
Quite Mr Nigel, and similar too to Corbyn's critique of the wealthy. He's right. They are too wealthy relative to the rest of us.
But you won;t make the poor rich by making the rich poor. And the tories deem similarly devoid of solutions too.
Indeed, I have never heard a good suggestion from anyone on how to restore the balance.
You ignore trying to make the rich poor, and concentrate only on making the poor rich.
Raise income tax thresholds and employer NI, provide incentives for small business to hire people and reduce paperwork and taxes for the self-employed. Set taxes on the rich to be internationally competitive and attract those people to your country.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
Surely the main lesson from the Sabisky debacle is, if you aim to be hired by the government, spend a week deleting ALL your social media FIRST.
And, post anonymously, in future.
Judging by the social media profile of the new intake of Conservative MPs, this is standard advice for their Parliamentary candidates. I'm surprised that no one thought to tip off others who were thinking of working in government.
On the specific case, we've all been done a favour. Anyone with such gormless and unpleasant views should be sifted out of any involvement with policy-making.
I normally shy away from this kind of discussion, but that's just too interesting a statistic to gnore. Are 90% of giraffes gay? Are there any studies as to the incidence of homosexuality amongst giraffes, and how is it assessed? If 90% is wrong, then what is the actual number? Goddamn it, this is the kind of thing that gets stuck in my head - the concept, that is, not the (redacted). It's the mental equivalent of an earworm. Aaargh!
You just had to make me look, didncha?
'Giraffes. Male giraffes have been observed to engage in remarkably high frequencies of homosexual behavior. After aggressive "necking", it is common for two male giraffes to caress and court each other, leading up to mounting and climax.'
You just know I'm going to ask for a number on this. Expressed as a percentage of all giraffe courtship/sexual behaviour, what is the proportion of such behaviour that is same-sex?
According to that link in one study it was “up to 94%” but that was mounting so could just have been an expression of dominance
At any time 5% are involved in “non-combative necking”
But the longest subsection is on homosexual behaviour in bats. I mean WTF?!
Perhaps they don't see as well in the dark as they think they do...
Very interesting , he will be a shoe in , I also expect him to be next SNP leader.
Angus Robertson: Why I hope to become SNP MSP for Edinburgh Central Edinburgh is a world-class city that should be the capital of an independent country, writes Angus Robertson as he announces his bid to become the SNP candidate for Edinburgh Central in the 2021 Holyrood election. Every resident who normally supports the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and the Greens will have the chance to use their vote to get rid of the Tories and elect a progressive pro-European candidate from the SNP who will prioritise public services over Tory austerity.
So Mr Robertson - can you clarify when you were told about Mr Salmonds incidents at Edinburgh airport and what were your subsequent actions ?
Whoa. Anyway, while I think Malc is right about Angus being after the leadership, there remains the problem of what to do if, as many think likely, Nicola doesn't go the distance to May 2021. One possibility is Kate Forbes takes over but I think more likely is that John Swinney will step up as FM and leader of the SNP at Holyrood in the interim with Angus becoming overall party leader.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
Surely the main lesson from the Sabisky debacle is, if you aim to be hired by the government, spend a week deleting ALL your social media FIRST.
And, post anonymously, in future.
Judging by the social media profile of the new intake of Conservative MPs, this is standard advice for their Parliamentary candidates. I'm surprised that no one thought to tip off others who were thinking of working in government.
On the specific case, we've all been done a favour. Anyone with such gormless and unpleasant views should be sifted out of any involvement with policy-making.
What a shame his parents didn't share his views on contraception
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
Surely the main lesson from the Sabisky debacle is, if you aim to be hired by the government, spend a week deleting ALL your social media FIRST.
And, post anonymously, in future.
The main lesson appears to be that this government has difficulty in sorting the leet from the twats...
Quite Mr Nigel, and similar too to Corbyn's critique of the wealthy. He's right. They are too wealthy relative to the rest of us.
But you won;t make the poor rich by making the rich poor. And the tories deem similarly devoid of solutions too.
Indeed, I have never heard a good suggestion from anyone on how to restore the balance.
How about a reword?. Not quite as pithy but -
You won't make even the slightest dent in the gap between rich and poor if you shy away from all measures that make the rich poorer than they would be if the measure were not taken.
The race remains a shambles with too many candidates. In particular the moderate vote is split between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden (who is hanging around like a bad smell) and, at least on paper, Bloomberg. This is giving Sanders wins with modest shares of the vote. The field needs winnowed and it needs it now.
The likes of Steyer is just another self indulgent distraction but Bloomberg is in danger of becoming the same. You cannot run a virtual campaign indefinitely. You need to get down and dirty, test your popularity and organisation, compete for votes and take part in the debates.
Klobuchar is the one in the right age bracket, adequately experienced and not geriatric but as I was saying yesterday her and Buttigieg are fighting for the same smallish pools of voters and in danger of knocking each other out.
Maybe being picky here but it doesn't need to be winnowed *now*, it needs to be winnowed by Super Tuesday, 2 weeks from now.
The problem is that I guess a contested convention can be a little bit self-fulfilling; For example, say you're KLOBUCHAR and your SURGE ends up fizzling out in NV and SC. At that point your campaign is basically hopeless. However if you keep going until Super Tuesday you'll at least get a bunch of delegates from Minnesota, who you may be able to trade for a job, maybe even the VP spot. What have you got to lose?
Your endorsement pre-Super Tuesday, when the other moderates are desperate to reach 15% in as many CDs as possible, is much more valuable than post-, when your bunch of 10% finishes resulted in wasted moderate votes.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
Bollox , a couple of beers a day is perfectly all right, nothing worse than an evangalistic convert who could not control themselves preaching to sensible people the evils of a few beers. He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
Risky arguing with you, I know, Malc, but for a 'real' alcoholic one beer is too many. If a drinker hasn't hit that level though, and can manage their drinking I'd agree with you. Mrs C and I have one alcohol-free day per week. Most of the time. Sometimes we have two, but that's unusual!!!!
The idea that for alcoholics it's either complete abstinence or alcoholism is something of a myth popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous. There's no reason why a hard-core alcoholic shouldn't just become a moderate drinker. But, obviously, the danger is they'd be back on the slippery slope again.
I have a pint every Thursday, most weeks that's it.
I have a dry sherry every Christmas. Most years that's it.
No taste for alcohol at all, I hasten to add.
Good afternoon, everybody. Many thanks for the interesting threads and comments since I last posted.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
Surely the main lesson from the Sabisky debacle is, if you aim to be hired by the government, spend a week deleting ALL your social media FIRST.
And, post anonymously, in future.
Ha, you’re off to work for government next week then?
To be fair, MP and other political candidates know this, but the assorted ‘social misfits’ that the No.10 policy unit are trying to attract don’t think in the same way.
I work in IT, and come across autistic people all the time. They simply don’t understand that their view on one or two particular subjects might be considered beyond the pale in polite society, because they’ve never really encountered polite society in the same way as the rest of us. I think that such people should be judged for their output at the job they are employed to do, and not for opinions they may have held a decade ago when they were students. People like Sabisky were employed to crunch data, rather than suggest to the PM what his policy on various social issues should be.
The race remains a shambles with too many candidates. In particular the moderate vote is split between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden (who is hanging around like a bad smell) and, at least on paper, Bloomberg. This is giving Sanders wins with modest shares of the vote. The field needs winnowed and it needs it now.
The likes of Steyer is just another self indulgent distraction but Bloomberg is in danger of becoming the same. You cannot run a virtual campaign indefinitely. You need to get down and dirty, test your popularity and organisation, compete for votes and take part in the debates.
Klobuchar is the one in the right age bracket, adequately experienced and not geriatric but as I was saying yesterday her and Buttigieg are fighting for the same smallish pools of voters and in danger of knocking each other out.
Maybe being picky here but it doesn't need to be winnowed *now*, it needs to be winnowed by Super Tuesday, 2 weeks from now.
The problem is that I guess a contested convention can be a little bit self-fulfilling; For example, say you're KLOBUCHAR and your SURGE ends up fizzling out in NV and SC. At that point your campaign is basically hopeless. However if you keep going until Super Tuesday you'll at least get a bunch of delegates from Minnesota, who you may be able to trade for a job, maybe even the VP spot. What have you got to lose?
Your endorsement pre-Super Tuesday, when the other moderates are desperate to reach 15% in as many CDs as possible, is much more valuable than post-, when your bunch of 10% finishes resulted in wasted moderate votes.
True. OTOH you also don't know which horse to back...
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
Surely the main lesson from the Sabisky debacle is, if you aim to be hired by the government, spend a week deleting ALL your social media FIRST.
And, post anonymously, in future.
And make sure you don't replicate an easily recognisable posting style when you do start posting anonymously.
The virus is slowly infecting everyone on that ship. Quite a few of the older ones will die.
EDIT: indeed, looking at the details, that poor chap is in danger. He's 74, he's diabetic, and apparently he's already vomiting. He's in a very high risk category. More like 1 in 5 than 1 in 50.
I think they are letting off the ones without it. And I assume the vomiting started after the doubts?
That last point is crucial I think. My favourite analogy for that is thinking that if someone likes a spoonful of sugar in their tea, they're going to LOVE it when you tip in the whole 500g bag...
Here's how to do this. Thought experiment -
GE19. Assume it's all the same (Get Brexit Done, "Boris", LDs Revoke, Lab Ref2 etc) apart from 2 things. (1) Labour has a moderate Leader. (2) Labour has moderate policies.
What's the result?
I'll go first. LDs about the same. Lab 25 better. Con majority of 30.
Corbyn and Corbynism cost 25 seats.
LDs would have done much better without fear of Corbyn.
The trouble is that this offers the LibDems a handy excuse to avoid facing the issues within their own party and campaign in the same way that blaming it all on Brexit allows Labour to duck the questions about Corbyn and anti-semitism. The LibDems can and should have done a lot better, Corbyn or not, and like Labour they need to work hard to try and learn the right lessons.
Of course they could and should have done better, but the question was what would have happened with a moderate Labour party. Almost regardless of how they campaigned the LDs would have done better in such a scenario. Sometimes excuses are also realities.
I normally shy away from this kind of discussion, but that's just too interesting a statistic to gnore. Are 90% of giraffes gay? Are there any studies as to the incidence of homosexuality amongst giraffes, and how is it assessed? If 90% is wrong, then what is the actual number? Goddamn it, this is the kind of thing that gets stuck in my head - the concept, that is, not the (redacted). It's the mental equivalent of an earworm. Aaargh!
Isn’t it more of an “87.35% of statistics cited on the internet are made up” type of comment?
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet - Abraham Lincoln
Indeed - as Stephen Bush likes to point out, the public generally consider the Labour leader to be the de facto LD leader, since many will vote LD only if they can stomach Lab in power. LD could have gained perhaps 10-15 more seats. Con maj 10-0.
Most importantly, a moderate leader with moderate policies wouldn't have made the strategic blunders of the past 3 years that placed Labour in a virtually unwinnable position.
A smaller Con majority with moderate Labour Leader and policies. I'll go with that. I think 30, but that is detail. Last para, however, is baloney. The biggest blunder was the Benn Act. That came from the moderates (inc some Tories) not the Corbyn wing of Labour.
The virus is slowly infecting everyone on that ship. Quite a few of the older ones will die.
EDIT: indeed, looking at the details, that poor chap is in danger. He's 74, he's diabetic, and apparently he's already vomiting. He's in a very high risk category. More like 1 in 5 than 1 in 50.
I think they are letting off the ones without it. And I assume the vomiting started after the doubts?
How can they know who hasn't got it? We're not sure of the incubation period yet, some think you could catch it, and be asymptomatic: for a month, or forever, AND test negative in that time, and still be a carrier.
That's one reason it is such a menace.
(PS I do not intend to spend all day posting about corona AGAIN)
Because it's still in you despite having no symptoms.
The trouble is that this offers the LibDems a handy excuse to avoid facing the issues within their own party and campaign in the same way that blaming it all on Brexit allows Labour to duck the questions about Corbyn and anti-semitism. The LibDems can and should have done a lot better, Corbyn or not, and like Labour they need to work hard to try and learn the right lessons.
Yes indeed. Amidst all of the shit piled on Labour let us not forget that the LDs also had a massively disappointing election.
The race remains a shambles with too many candidates. In particular the moderate vote is split between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden (who is hanging around like a bad smell) and, at least on paper, Bloomberg. This is giving Sanders wins with modest shares of the vote. The field needs winnowed and it needs it now.
The likes of Steyer is just another self indulgent distraction but Bloomberg is in danger of becoming the same. You cannot run a virtual campaign indefinitely. You need to get down and dirty, test your popularity and organisation, compete for votes and take part in the debates.
Klobuchar is the one in the right age bracket, adequately experienced and not geriatric but as I was saying yesterday her and Buttigieg are fighting for the same smallish pools of voters and in danger of knocking each other out.
Maybe being picky here but it doesn't need to be winnowed *now*, it needs to be winnowed by Super Tuesday, 2 weeks from now.
The problem is that I guess a contested convention can be a little bit self-fulfilling; For example, say you're KLOBUCHAR and your SURGE ends up fizzling out in NV and SC. At that point your campaign is basically hopeless. However if you keep going until Super Tuesday you'll at least get a bunch of delegates from Minnesota, who you may be able to trade for a job, maybe even the VP spot. What have you got to lose?
Your endorsement pre-Super Tuesday, when the other moderates are desperate to reach 15% in as many CDs as possible, is much more valuable than post-, when your bunch of 10% finishes resulted in wasted moderate votes.
True. OTOH you also don't know which horse to back...
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
For some reason, Braun Research has polled Vermont.
PBers will be shocked, shocked I tell ya', to discover that Sanders has opened up a commanding lead there. He's 35-odd points above second placed Buttigieg.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
The problem with out the box thinking is that it covers a wide range of things.
So, am I thinking "outside the box" if I claim that homeopathic remedies are much more efficient than regular medicine, and demand the NHS reorganises around them? Or am I a complete idiot?
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
The problem with out the box thinking is that it covers a wide range of things.
So, am I thinking "outside the box" if I claim that homeopathic remedies are much more efficient than regular medicine, and demand the NHS reorganises around them? Or am I a complete idiot?
If you’re in charge of NHS drugs policy then, yes, you’re a complete idiot.
But if you’re third junior working on defence procurement cost benefit analysis between three different weapons systems?
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
Some of his opinions were valid, some were wrong but interesting, some were unsavoury and a bit mad. He doesn't strike me as evil, he does strike me as very foolish and naive - and unintelligent - not to realise that his online commentary would be combed over and used against him.
Can he not locate the DELETE button?
if he is, as suggested, a self-publicist, then he has done very well, as I've now heard of this person. but the refusal of Johnson to condemn those views reflects very badly on Johnson, another self-publicist who has done depressingly well. i guess Johnson just recognises a fellow racist chancer
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
The problem with out the box thinking is that it covers a wide range of things.
So, am I thinking "outside the box" if I claim that homeopathic remedies are much more efficient than regular medicine, and demand the NHS reorganises around them? Or am I a complete idiot?
If you’re in charge of NHS drugs policy then, yes, you’re a complete idiot.
But if you’re third junior working on defence procurement cost benefit analysis between three different weapons systems?
then why are you working from no 10 downing street?
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
Some of his opinions were valid, some were wrong but interesting, some were unsavoury and a bit mad. He doesn't strike me as evil, he does strike me as very foolish and naive - and unintelligent - not to realise that his online commentary would be combed over and used against him.
Can he not locate the DELETE button?
if he is, as suggested, a self-publicist, then he has done very well, as I've now heard of this person. but the refusal of Johnson to condemn those views reflects very badly on Johnson, another self-publicist who has done depressingly well. i guess Johnson just recognises a fellow racist chancer
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
Some of his opinions were valid, some were wrong but interesting, some were unsavoury and a bit mad. He doesn't strike me as evil, he does strike me as very foolish and naive - and unintelligent - not to realise that his online commentary would be combed over and used against him.
Can he not locate the DELETE button?
if he is, as suggested, a self-publicist, then he has done very well, as I've now heard of this person. but the refusal of Johnson to condemn those views reflects very badly on Johnson, another self-publicist who has done depressingly well. i guess Johnson just recognises a fellow racist chancer
In fairness, I suppose Boris was asked to comment on the guy before Dom made his decision to let him go. Boris could hardly risk condemning him when it was still possible that Dom would keep him on. Dom would have been embarrassed and been made very cross.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
I’m saying that if your job is crunching data for defence projects, why does it matter what your view on any particular social policy happens to be?
So... on the Democratic primary race. If Biden fails in Nevada and fails in South Carolina, then I think he has to quit the race. Indeed, I suspect he's already running very low on funds, and is relying on an influx of cash following a South Carolina win.
Warren, I think, is also probably low on money. Nevada, with its strong union connections, was always her best shot pre Super-Tuesday. If she fails to get a meaningful number of delegates, then I don't see how she continues either. (There are 36 delegates up for grabs in Nevada - three times the number in New Hampshire - and she needs to get at least six, I would reckon, and a decent third place.)
Klobuchar is doing much better for money. But still has a bit of a problem: neither Nevada nor South Carolina are obviously great states for her. She's been advertising heavily in Nevada, and if she pulls out a great debate performance tomorrow, then who knows... But to become the moderate choice on Super Tuesday, she really needs to overtake Buttigieg.
Which brings us to Buttigieg. If there's one thing we've learned from both Iowa and New Hampshire, it's that Mayor Pete is well organised. Nevada is a caucus state, and those reward organisation. On the other hand, Nevada is much less white than New Hampshire or Iowa. Performing well here would go someway to showing he could reach beyond his base of college educated whites. On the other hand... he really needs to hold on to second. He needs to make the moderate track his own. And that means beating out Klobuchar, Biden and Steyer, making the 15% bar in every CD, and getting a solid second.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
I’m saying that if your job is crunching data for defence projects, why does it matter what your view on any particular social policy happens to be?
It would be amusing if No 10 appoint one R. Crosby.
As far as I can tell superforecasting just means you’re good at avoiding confirmation bias, and being outside an expert community of forecasters helps you do that.
I guess one thing to consider in this headline is the Chinese people over 80 will be in general far worse health than most in the west. Growing up 70-80 years ago, China was obviously a lot poorer, worse nutrition, extremely high rate of smoking etc.
"Look, trench warfare is horrible and is pointlessly killing all our soldiers, how about we put them in mechanized metal vehicles equipped with guns and call them tanks?"
"Don't think outside the box! You're FIRED"
Perhaps "thinking outside the box" is rather like telling extremely lengthy and elaborate "raconteur" stories to amuse and entertain a gathering of friends and family.
If you can do it, you should. It is most welcome. But if you can't it is much much better that you do not make the attempt.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
I’m saying that if your job is crunching data for defence projects, why does it matter what your view on any particular social policy happens to be?
But if you're looking for a data cruncher, wouldn't you employ an actual data cruncher, rather than an education psychology graduate with a theology podcast?
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I'll pass on the "very intelligent" but was this guy socially awkward?
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
The problem with out the box thinking is that it covers a wide range of things.
So, am I thinking "outside the box" if I claim that homeopathic remedies are much more efficient than regular medicine, and demand the NHS reorganises around them? Or am I a complete idiot?
If you’re in charge of NHS drugs policy then, yes, you’re a complete idiot.
But if you’re third junior working on defence procurement cost benefit analysis between three different weapons systems?
"Look, trench warfare is horrible and is pointlessly killing all our soldiers, how about we put them in mechanized metal vehicles equipped with guns and call them tanks?"
As far as I can tell superforecasting just means you’re good at avoiding confirmation bias, and being outside an expert community of forecasters helps you do that.
This chap predicted Remain in 2016. Perhaps an off day.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
I’m saying that if your job is crunching data for defence projects, why does it matter what your view on any particular social policy happens to be?
But if you're looking for a data cruncher, wouldn't you employ an actual data cruncher, rather than an education psychology graduate with a theology podcast?
Because the guy hiring is fed up of being presented with Oxbridge graduates by the Oxbridge-educated HR department, and is trying to find people who don’t fit the usual mould of people applying for government jobs.
I guess one thing to consider in this headline is the Chinese people over 80 will be in general far worse health than most in the west. Growing up 70-80 years ago, China was obviously a lot poorer, worse nutrition, extremely high rate of smoking etc.
The converse argument is that by surviving to 80 in China they have demonstrated above-average disease resistance...
I guess one thing to consider in this headline is the Chinese people over 80 will be in general far worse health than most in the west. Growing up 70-80 years ago, China was obviously a lot poorer, worse nutrition, extremely high rate of smoking etc.
The converse argument is that by surviving to 80 in China they have demonstrated above-average disease resistance...
Fair point, although I doubt the high rate of smoking does a lot of good when it comes to surviving a pneumonia type disease.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
Disagree they are always tipping off paparazzi when it suits them so they are very fair game when they get caught in reality rather than as the fakes they portray themselves as.
I guess one thing to consider in this headline is the Chinese people over 80 will be in general far worse health than most in the west. Growing up 70-80 years ago, China was obviously a lot poorer, worse nutrition, extremely high rate of smoking etc.
I wonder what the comparable proportions of over 80s death rates are for other conditions and viruses, like ordinary flu?
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
I’m saying that if your job is crunching data for defence projects, why does it matter what your view on any particular social policy happens to be?
It doesn’t really work like that, though, does it.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
I’m saying that if your job is crunching data for defence projects, why does it matter what your view on any particular social policy happens to be?
But if you're looking for a data cruncher, wouldn't you employ an actual data cruncher, rather than an education psychology graduate with a theology podcast?
Because the guy hiring is fed up of being presented with Oxbridge graduates by the Oxbridge-educated HR department, and is trying to find people who don’t fit the usual mould of people applying for government jobs.
And doing a pretty crap job of sorting through the applications.
Not sure what Dr Moderate has been drinking - but RLB has shown no intelligence that I can discern. And if Labour lost on policy, then whatever policy skills she might have are lacking.
Nandy is more than just towns. I must admit her republicanism should have been left unsaid - it will not endear her to those towns (or many others)
Thornberry - is not charismatic or inspiring. She is persistent and loud. These are not the same thing
And as for Starmer - given how he is sticking close to Corbyn at the moment, I can't see him as being competent. To lead you have to set a direction, not 'more of the same' plus a bit of technocrat.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office....
Given he appears to communicate by means of off the record briefings, and is quite possibly the most influential member of the government team aside from Boris, I think he's fairer game than most, though.
Not sure what Dr Moderate has been drinking - but RLB has shown no intelligence that I can discern. And if Labour lost on policy, then whatever policy skills she might have are lacking.
Nandy is more than just towns. I must admit her republicanism should have been left unsaid - it will not endear her to those towns (or many others)
Thornberry - is not charismatic or inspiring. She is persistent and loud. These are not the same thing
And as for Starmer - given how he is sticking close to Corbyn at the moment, I can't see him as being competent. To lead you have to set a direction, not 'more of the same' plus a bit of technocrat.
Drinking the same kool-aid he was on throughout the GE campaign.
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
I guess one thing to consider in this headline is the Chinese people over 80 will be in general far worse health than most in the west. Growing up 70-80 years ago, China was obviously a lot poorer, worse nutrition, extremely high rate of smoking etc.
I wonder what the comparable proportions of over 80s death rates are for other conditions and viruses, like ordinary flu?
The best estimates right now are that coronavirus is around 20 times more lethal than ordinary flu. Don't know how that parses by age.
Not sure what Dr Moderate has been drinking - but RLB has shown no intelligence that I can discern. And if Labour lost on policy, then whatever policy skills she might have are lacking.
Nandy is more than just towns. I must admit her republicanism should have been left unsaid - it will not endear her to those towns (or many others)
Thornberry - is not charismatic or inspiring. She is persistent and loud. These are not the same thing
And as for Starmer - given how he is sticking close to Corbyn at the moment, I can't see him as being competent. To lead you have to set a direction, not 'more of the same' plus a bit of technocrat.
Drinking the same kool-aid he was on throughout the GE campaign.
Do you remember when we were lamenting the quality of the offer in 2015? Oh for a Burnham or a Cooper now.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office....
Given he appears to communicate by means of off the record briefings, and is quite possibly the most influential member of the government team aside from Boris, I think he's fairer game than most, though.
If he’s briefing the press then they should call him out. But they don’t want to do that, because they’d lose access. This was the whole row between No.10 and the Lobby from the other week.
On the one hand, one of Cummings' provocative hires just resigned, and he dresses as if he bought his entire wardrobe as a job lot from Oxfam.
On the other, he crushed all political opposition to Brexit and the Conservative Party in this country with the merest flick of his hand.
Which one d'you suppose is more significant?
On the third hand, I am not sure I approve of the media doorstepping politicos and celebs outside their homes.
Politicians and celebs are fair game. Members of their staff, less so.
I'd argue that celebs are not fair game. Given that Dom is appointed not elected, arguably he should not be doorstepped either.
I think those who deliberately court the media for fame and money, should have to deal with the bad side of them as well.
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
I’m saying that if your job is crunching data for defence projects, why does it matter what your view on any particular social policy happens to be?
But if you're looking for a data cruncher, wouldn't you employ an actual data cruncher, rather than an education psychology graduate with a theology podcast?
Because the guy hiring is fed up of being presented with Oxbridge graduates by the Oxbridge-educated HR department, and is trying to find people who don’t fit the usual mould of people applying for government jobs.
Great. Go o the physics or maths department at Imperial. Find the skills you want. AS was pretty well-known on the education conference circuit, and he's as much of a humanities blogger who understands less science than he thinks as Dom.
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine. Time to produce a quicker earlier easier test.
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine. Time to produce a quicker earlier easier test.
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
My understanding is that the quicker, easier, earlier test part is cracked already.
The EU does not specifically prevent dredging, neither does it recommend dredging. Dredging is allowed in the UK although the four environmental regulators prefer not to do so in order to protect wildlife.
@Mexicanpete, assuming you're in the know, what form does the EU's 'non-recommendation' of dredging take? The EU has a lot of form on enforcing unpopular poplicies through (admittedly willing) national organisations. Especially regarding water.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of the dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work, thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost and with huge social problems, as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
Hubei province is just a shade below the UK population. There have been around 1600 deaths so far. In 2018 the flu killed circa 33k people in the UK.
One of the largest killers in China is pollution related diseases. So if industry grinds to a halt and there are no cars on the street is China's health actually better off ?
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
Not sure what Dr Moderate has been drinking - but RLB has shown no intelligence that I can discern. And if Labour lost on policy, then whatever policy skills she might have are lacking.
Nandy is more than just towns. I must admit her republicanism should have been left unsaid - it will not endear her to those towns (or many others)
Thornberry - is not charismatic or inspiring. She is persistent and loud. These are not the same thing
And as for Starmer - given how he is sticking close to Corbyn at the moment, I can't see him as being competent. To lead you have to set a direction, not 'more of the same' plus a bit of technocrat.
Well, Simon, I'm sorry that we don't have a talented, just a smidgen right of centre Conservative to tempt you with - but we can only pick from the menu presented.
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
I know it is pedantic but Diamond Princess is not a boat, it is a wonderful ship which my wife and I spent 33 days on sailing from Vancouver to China 5 years ago
The captain would not be impressed by suggesting it is a boat
I suspect it was very useful research in a contained area to see incubation time, infection rates, the severity of the illness and tracking against age / health and mortality rates.
I can't think of a better enclosure for finding information on a new virus.
The fact that it acted as an incubator for the virus can not be a shock to any sentient being.
All the Tories need to do to win the next election is play constant, undoctored soundbites from the Labour Leader and Deputy Leader candidates. Freedom of movement, get rid of the monarchy, sexless children, the Labour peace pledge....
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine. Time to produce a quicker earlier easier test.
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
The alternative is draconian quarantine of hundreds of millions of people, which causes intense misery, fucks the global economy, and doesn't seem to work that well, anyway. How many will die from lost growth, panic, riots?
There are no good choices. Are we sure we are making the least bad choice?
Just a question. Who is 'we' in your last sentence
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine. Time to produce a quicker earlier easier test.
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
The alternative is draconian quarantine of hundreds of millions of people, which causes intense misery, fucks the global economy, and doesn't seem to work that well, anyway. How many will die from lost growth, panic, riots?
There are no good choices. Are we sure we are making the least bad choice?
Is this you not banging on all day about Coronavirus?
Not sure what Dr Moderate has been drinking - but RLB has shown no intelligence that I can discern. And if Labour lost on policy, then whatever policy skills she might have are lacking.
Nandy is more than just towns. I must admit her republicanism should have been left unsaid - it will not endear her to those towns (or many others)
Thornberry - is not charismatic or inspiring. She is persistent and loud. These are not the same thing
And as for Starmer - given how he is sticking close to Corbyn at the moment, I can't see him as being competent. To lead you have to set a direction, not 'more of the same' plus a bit of technocrat.
Well, Simon, I'm sorry that we don't have a talented, just a smidgen right of centre Conservative to tempt you with - but we can only pick from the menu presented.
Labour has better qualified candidates for both positions - they have, for their own reasons, chosen not to put themselves forward. Almost certainly because of the leftward shift in the selectorate meaning that they feel it a pointless exercise.
We need a strong opposition. Our system needs it.
But there isn't strength in what has been put before the Labour membership.
The Deputy candidates are even worse. Butler's recent pronouncements are symptomatic of the problem.
I know the process of renewal takes time - but this is painful to watch (from any political perspective)
Yes, you can only vote for what is on offer. But this is not a strong line-up of candidates.
(And yes, the Conservative Party when through it post-1997)
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine. Time to produce a quicker earlier easier test.
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
The alternative is draconian quarantine of hundreds of millions of people, which causes intense misery, fucks the global economy, and doesn't seem to work that well, anyway. How many will die from lost growth, panic, riots?
There are no good choices. Are we sure we are making the least bad choice?
Just a question. Who is 'we' in your last sentence
Homo sapiens
I expect 'Homo sapiens' has a multitude of views on this crisis
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
"Michael Bloomberg Surges in Poll and Qualifies for Democratic Debate in Las Vegas
After garnering 19 percent support in a national poll, the billionaire will be on the debate stage, where he is certain to be a target of onstage criticism."
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
I think sending people to Kamchatka is probably also likely to result in some negative headlines.
But at least I now know where Kamchatka is ...
This is an unrefereed, non peer reviewed journal, which reckons the fatality rate is quite a lot higher than 2%:
"we estimated that the number of infected individuals during early epidemic double every 2.4 days, and the R0 value is likely to be between 4.7 and 6.6. We further show that quarantine and contact tracing of symptomatic individuals alone may not be effective and early, strong control measures are needed to stop transmission of the virus."
You evidently have expertise. Is it legitimate? Credible?
It certainly looks legit in terms of both where it is published and who funds some of the authors.
However, while all such papers have to be taken seriously: 1) I am extremely wary of numbers this early in an outbreak, particularly given that China has form in both not collecting full statistics and in not sharing what they do have; and 2) I am always wary of projections from models based on assumptions based upon numbers for which we really don't have good confidence.
So, the authors may be spot on in their calculations, or they may not. I just don't think precise R0 numbers are that important at this stage. Whether it is 2 or 6, our response will be much the same.
Where I agree with them is in the conclusion that epidemiological tracking and quarantine won't be enough, and that a broader campaign of public health responses is needed. But, in that, this paper adds nothing.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Generally, diseases mutate into less harmful forms. If you kill all of your hosts, you're like an animal that destroys the habitat your species relies upon to survive.
The ideal evolutionary niche for a virus is high transmissibility, zero morbidity or mortality.
Not necessarily; they have caused a maximum 3710 (non-Japanese) extra cases, but prevented an unknown number of others and possibly stopped Japan turning into Hubei province mark 2..
Surely it would have been better to send the boat somewhere utterly empty, like Kamchatka, and separate everyone - passengers and staff - to minimise infection amongst them?
Either way, the news from China is a bit better (if we can trust it) but the news from Japan is not good.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine. Time to produce a quicker earlier easier test.
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
The alternative is draconian quarantine of hundreds of millions of people, which causes intense misery, fucks the global economy, and doesn't seem to work that well, anyway. How many will die from lost growth, panic, riots?
There are no good choices. Are we sure we are making the least bad choice?
Is this you not banging on all day about Coronavirus?
It is. I must do some bloody work. Later
Hope you haven't also gone back to Twitter yet Sean!
Labour has better qualified candidates for both positions - they have, for their own reasons, chosen not to put themselves forward. Almost certainly because of the leftward shift in the selectorate meaning that they feel it a pointless exercise.
We need a strong opposition. Our system needs it.
But there isn't strength in what has been put before the Labour membership.
The Deputy candidates are even worse. Butler's recent pronouncements are symptomatic of the problem.
I know the process of renewal takes time - but this is painful to watch (from any political perspective)
Yes, you can only vote for what is on offer. But this is not a strong line-up of candidates.
(And yes, the Conservative Party when through it post-1997)
Hmm. I think you might be using the word "quality" to mean "closer to your political views". Or perhaps you are chemically unable to view a Labour leader with any positivity. @Cookie below recalls how people were dissing all the 2015 candidates. I find this telling. I also remember as if it were yesterday the widespread labeling of a moderate, highly intelligent, super articulate, palpably decent man by the name of Ed Miliband as geeky and weak and verging on Marxist. So, you know.
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
The Nevada poll was released yesterday. There were therefore two polls out yesterday with *extremely* different views as to the Nevada outcome.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%. One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
Actually, to get a bit Sabisky on Coronavirus, there has to be an argument that, with a death rate of just 2% (and possibly a lot lower), added to the fact that most of these dead will be ill and old already, we should stop these futile attempts to contain the virus, and just let it do its work. Thereby reducing the burden of already-sick pensioners on the rest of us.
I am semi serious. Containing the virus is near impossible, and comes at vast economic cost, and causes huge social problems - as we see in China.
Give it up. Accept it. Life will go on for 98% of people. Some oldsters will snuff it. So it goes.
You are missing the point that they are trying to buy time, time for the virus to mutate into something less harmful, or time to isolate, identify and produce a vaccine.
But, is there a reason why with time the virus may mutate into something less harmful?
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
Either is possible, and Coronavirus mutated much more slowly than Flu viruses, but generally viruses become less virulent over time.
There may be some evidence of this already. The mortality rate in Hubei is 2.9% compared with cases in the rest of China at 0.4%. Cases outside Cina suggest this too.
Possibly this is just a time lag effect, possibly just the health services in Hubei being overwhelmed, or possibly less severe disease. We don't know yet.
As a fifty something a mortality rate of 1.3% isn't great. Perhaps eadric will leave a rich young widow with his casual attitude to these things.
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
The Nevada poll was released yesterday. There were therefore two polls out yesterday with *extremely* different views as to the Nevada outcome.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%. One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
What would be the British Polling Council’s views on headline polls with such small (c.250) sample sizes?
Comments
Dom Cummings is a controversial character, but he’s a member of staff and those who wish to ask questions of him should do so through No.10 and the Cabinet Office.
The sad thing about this week’s saga is that a lot of very intelligent but socially awkward people, who could have been very useful to the government in formulating data-driven policy, will now not want to come forward for fear of finding themselves on the wrong end of a press pile-on, over things they may have said and done years ago.
It appeared to work, with a few Uni towns going Labour (although it's quite likely that it was more the young skew of Labour voters that did that) - so the WASPI stuff, free broadband, train price discounts, all looked like bribes aimed at nibbling a little more out of the Tory vote. The problem is that if you promise everything to everyone you look like a bunch of amateurs, and fewer people believe it's possible to deliver.
Hopefully there's time before the next election to revert to a clean slate and work out what's important to people, and what can actually be achieved.
Raise income tax thresholds and employer NI, provide incentives for small business to hire people and reduce paperwork and taxes for the self-employed. Set taxes on the rich to be internationally competitive and attract those people to your country.
On the specific case, we've all been done a favour. Anyone with such gormless and unpleasant views should be sifted out of any involvement with policy-making.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1229673847126941697
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/1229747856321413120?s=20
You won't make even the slightest dent in the gap between rich and poor if you shy away from all measures that make the rich poorer than they would be if the measure were not taken.
No taste for alcohol at all, I hasten to add.
Good afternoon, everybody. Many thanks for the interesting threads and comments since I last posted.
To be fair, MP and other political candidates know this, but the assorted ‘social misfits’ that the No.10 policy unit are trying to attract don’t think in the same way.
I work in IT, and come across autistic people all the time. They simply don’t understand that their view on one or two particular subjects might be considered beyond the pale in polite society, because they’ve never really encountered polite society in the same way as the rest of us. I think that such people should be judged for their output at the job they are employed to do, and not for opinions they may have held a decade ago when they were students. People like Sabisky were employed to crunch data, rather than suggest to the PM what his policy on various social issues should be.
(Biden, in case anyone is wondering.)
Perhaps at parties he talked music and film rather than the racial profiling of IQ.
PBers will be shocked, shocked I tell ya', to discover that Sanders has opened up a commanding lead there. He's 35-odd points above second placed Buttigieg.
So, am I thinking "outside the box" if I claim that homeopathic remedies are much more efficient than regular medicine, and demand the NHS reorganises around them? Or am I a complete idiot?
But if you’re third junior working on defence procurement cost benefit analysis between three different weapons systems?
but the refusal of Johnson to condemn those views reflects very badly on Johnson, another self-publicist who has done depressingly well. i guess Johnson just recognises a fellow racist chancer
I don’t see what being socially awkward necessarily has to do with holding outrageous or extremist views.
Warren, I think, is also probably low on money. Nevada, with its strong union connections, was always her best shot pre Super-Tuesday. If she fails to get a meaningful number of delegates, then I don't see how she continues either. (There are 36 delegates up for grabs in Nevada - three times the number in New Hampshire - and she needs to get at least six, I would reckon, and a decent third place.)
Klobuchar is doing much better for money. But still has a bit of a problem: neither Nevada nor South Carolina are obviously great states for her. She's been advertising heavily in Nevada, and if she pulls out a great debate performance tomorrow, then who knows... But to become the moderate choice on Super Tuesday, she really needs to overtake Buttigieg.
Which brings us to Buttigieg. If there's one thing we've learned from both Iowa and New Hampshire, it's that Mayor Pete is well organised. Nevada is a caucus state, and those reward organisation. On the other hand, Nevada is much less white than New Hampshire or Iowa. Performing well here would go someway to showing he could reach beyond his base of college educated whites. On the other hand... he really needs to hold on to second. He needs to make the moderate track his own. And that means beating out Klobuchar, Biden and Steyer, making the 15% bar in every CD, and getting a solid second.
I think the result looks something like this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8015951/Most-coronavirus-infections-mild-says-Chinese-study.html
I guess one thing to consider in this headline is the Chinese people over 80 will be in general far worse health than most in the west. Growing up 70-80 years ago, China was obviously a lot poorer, worse nutrition, extremely high rate of smoking etc.
If you can do it, you should. It is most welcome. But if you can't it is much much better that you do not make the attempt.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/18/sadiq-khan-urges-eu-to-offer-britons-associate-citizenship
It is just stupid gesture politics, rather than getting on top of the issues that face London which he can have some impact on.
https://twitter.com/centrist_phone/status/1229376937207963650?s=20
Nandy is more than just towns. I must admit her republicanism should have been left unsaid - it will not endear her to those towns (or many others)
Thornberry - is not charismatic or inspiring. She is persistent and loud. These are not the same thing
And as for Starmer - given how he is sticking close to Corbyn at the moment, I can't see him as being competent. To lead you have to set a direction, not 'more of the same' plus a bit of technocrat.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
19 points ahead in Nevada. 12 points ahead nationally. 38 points points ahead in Vermont. The usual competitive scores vs Trump. Main issue on Saturday will be the expectations game - if one of the centrists breaks out of that death grip they have on each other, it'll turn out closer.
https://www.globalhealthnow.org/2020-01/coronaviruses-what-you-need-know
and
https://www.thelancet.com/coronavirus?dgcid=hubspot_email_newsletter_tlcoronavirus20&utm_campaign=tlcoronavirus20&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=83462912&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_YFGTSzwSS3skhyGfVI_T4GFPNnQvIlvkTpR0j_kvTMjyGCY-F-PWH9MKDN0wR_RseqjKsw0KKTXkqlbgc4BPTNUOb0g&_hsmi=83462912
Whereas you want to give up on a slice of the population just because they are older than you.
One of the largest killers in China is pollution related diseases. So if industry grinds to a halt and there are no cars on the street is China's health actually better off ?
The captain would not be impressed by suggesting it is a boat
I can't think of a better enclosure for finding information on a new virus.
The fact that it acted as an incubator for the virus can not be a shock to any sentient being.
We need a strong opposition. Our system needs it.
But there isn't strength in what has been put before the Labour membership.
The Deputy candidates are even worse. Butler's recent pronouncements are symptomatic of the problem.
I know the process of renewal takes time - but this is painful to watch (from any political perspective)
Yes, you can only vote for what is on offer. But this is not a strong line-up of candidates.
(And yes, the Conservative Party when through it post-1997)
Why may it not mutate into something more harmful?
After garnering 19 percent support in a national poll, the billionaire will be on the debate stage, where he is certain to be a target of onstage criticism."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/bloomberg-debate-poll-numbers.html
However, while all such papers have to be taken seriously:
1) I am extremely wary of numbers this early in an outbreak, particularly given that China has form in both not collecting full statistics and in not sharing what they do have; and
2) I am always wary of projections from models based on assumptions based upon numbers for which we really don't have good confidence.
So, the authors may be spot on in their calculations, or they may not. I just don't think precise R0 numbers are that important at this stage. Whether it is 2 or 6, our response will be much the same.
Where I agree with them is in the conclusion that epidemiological tracking and quarantine won't be enough, and that a broader campaign of public health responses is needed. But, in that, this paper adds nothing.
The ideal evolutionary niche for a virus is high transmissibility, zero morbidity or mortality.
One had Warren plus Sanders at 51%.
One had them at 20%.
I think the reality is more like the former than the latter (which appeared to massively oversample older voters - h/t @speedy2 ), but I would still reckon their combined total is more like 40-45% than 50%.
There may be some evidence of this already. The mortality rate in Hubei is 2.9% compared with cases in the rest of China at 0.4%. Cases outside Cina suggest this too.
Possibly this is just a time lag effect, possibly just the health services in Hubei being overwhelmed, or possibly less severe disease. We don't know yet.
As a fifty something a mortality rate of 1.3% isn't great. Perhaps eadric will leave a rich young widow with his casual attitude to these things.