Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.
Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.
This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
You are fighting a losing battle
No I am not, the facts are clear, coronavirus started in China due to the Chinese government's failure to ban open meat markets and experiments on bats.
End of conversation
Its also irrelevant.
A heart attack may be triggered by a lack of exercise and a bad diet but if the ambulance never turns up after repeated calls and it turns out there are no ambulances available anywhere in the country then something has gone wrong with those responsible for the ambulance service.
We have done well over 10k tests before the USA even hit 500 tests. While NYC had done zero tests. NYC did its first tests yesterday.
Do you think NYC has no travel to China? There's no Chinese resident in NYC which has one of the worlds most famous Chinatowns?
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
Surely you do both. You insist on only sorting out the original problem.
Carrying on with Philips analogy you want to sort his weight out to ensure he doesn't have a heart attack in the future. However because no ambulance turned up (as per Philip) he has died!
Not a lot of point in ensuring he doesn't die next time if he is already dead is there?
OK as a final service before I shop, here are the mortality rates for all the countries that have disclosed cases and have recorded deaths. I know it's crude, but I think it is also illuminating (in descending number of cases)
China: 3.67%
Korea: 0.66%
Italy: 3.16%
Iran: 3.3%
Diamond Princess: 0.85%
Japan: 2.05%
France: 1.96%
USA: 6.48% (the disadvantages of not testing)
Hong Kong: 1.98%
Thailand: 2.08%
Taiwan: 2.44%
Australia:2.56%
San Marino: 10%
The Philippines: 33%
What does that teach us? Well, firstly: that I know how to waste my time, but secondly, the average mortality rate worldwide is about 2.5%.
And also, don't go to the Philippines.
To be fair the only one of those where we know (or can be confadant ish) that all cases where found and tested is the Diamond Princess, which at 0.85% is the second lowest.
it may not be a good predictor as the age profile of its customers was probably not an accurate reflection of any contrary..
I would expect the age profile on the Princess to push the death rate up.
The discrepancies between the data are best explained by a lot of people carrying the virus but having no symptoms worse than a common cold, so not bothering to go for a test.
The good news is that the death rate is then much lower than any of these figures. The bad news is that the infection rate is higher.
Fully Agree.
Ironically as this sounds but the best thing might be that there is a mutated strain of the virus, no worse than a miled cold for most, that is complacently out of control and spreading rapidly, thus effectively 'vaccinating' inadvertently but rapidly.
Unlikely in the UK or it would have shown up in all the testing that has been done.
Just at the moment when the Brexit negotiations will be entering the crucial stages. If I was a betting man I might be slightly more inclined to no-deal, in that case.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
Actually, I think that maybe an understatement
I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.
It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.
Its more than just a betting site, its a community. Should we continue the communal conversation we were having on the old thread in the old thread and leave this one abandoned?
Or maybe he should set up "SeriousPoliticalBetting.com" where any non-betting post results in an instant ban.
And to stop CR going off on one, I shall place $500,000 to win on Lucky Dan, 3rd race at Riverside...
To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?
I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.
As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.
Yep, proportionally within state and district, but with a 15% bar. Biden's had quite the surge, which should minimise the CA damage, and give him a shot of winning Texas. If Sanders is only marginally ahead after tonight it's a great night for Biden.
I'm not sure if he'll even win Arkansas anymore. His support is ebbing.
Surely you do both. You insist on only sorting out the original problem.
Carrying on with Philips analogy you want to sort his weight out to ensure he doesn't have a heart attack in the future. However because no ambulance turned up (as per Philip) he has died!
Not a lot of point in ensuring he doesn't die next time if he is already dead is there?
Precisely! In my example the initial heart attack was survivable (as many are given prompt treatment) and the ambulance was called but because of no ambulance ever coming its resulted in death.
That's what has happened in America. People who never even travelled are dead because of the absence of testing those who were returning to America.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
Actually, I think that maybe an understatement
I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.
It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.
Its more than just a betting site, its a community. Should we continue the communal conversation we were having on the old thread in the old thread and leave this one abandoned?
Or maybe he should set up "SeriousPoliticalBetting.com" where any non-betting post results in an instant ban.
And to stop CR going off on one, I shall place $500,000 to win on Lucky Dan, 3rd race at Riverside...
Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.
Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.
This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.
Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.
This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
You are fighting a losing battle
No I am not, the facts are clear, coronavirus started in China due to the Chinese government's failure to ban open meat markets and experiments on bats.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
Actually, I think that maybe an understatement
I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.
It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.
I think the tips on this site so far for US 20 by our usual punters have been a bit shit really....
I should have posted here an email from my US friend who emailed to say that Bernie's star would initially shine brightly, Biden would comeback on superTuesday but Warren may well end up being a convention pick..this was months ago, and if I had followed his advice could have made a load of money by now....
Warren might do a bit better than expected if we assume at least some of Amy Klobuchar's voters want a woman president. Other than that thought, I have nothing and am contemplating an early night.
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?
I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.
As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.
Yes all states are allocate delegates prepositionally, and with the same 15% cut off.
Also worth remembering that delegates are allocated by congregational district, with a few also allocated at the state level.
if a candidate gets 15.5% in a state there could easily be half of the CDs where they have less than 15% so they will come away with few Delights, but a candidate with 14.5% will also probably get some.
If all bar one candidate get over the 15% cut off (in a CD or State), then it in effect becomes a 'winner take all' which a week ago some places like California looked lick being.
Just at the moment when the Brexit negotiations will be entering the crucial stages. If I was a betting man I might be slightly more inclined to no-deal, in that case.
Barnier said good progress today and was quite upbeat
Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.
Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.
This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No, it would be stupid to blame China for this - not because it is wrong to do so but because it's a waste of time. If you like analogies consider a case where a convicted killer. out on parole, kills someone. The killer is more blameworthy than the parole board but that doesn't make the parole board blameless, and blaming the board might lead to improvements in the way it does things in future. What do hope to achieve by telling a multiple killer that he's a really bad person?
Prevent them from doing it again backed up by life imprisonment this time and if necessary sanctions against China will have to be considered by the global community once this outbreak has been dealt with if it still refuses to stop live meat markets and allow experiments on bats
Sanctions like what? Banning the export of iPhones?
Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.
Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.
This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
I think it'll be bad.
It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.
It’s doing its best to recover towards close, as I suggested it might, but it’s such a weak one that I think holding sell positions overnight is the best play.
There could be some movement because of the Democrats primary poling, showing sanders is down, if not out.
But trying to separate the two is not relay practical at least not for me.
Interesting point. So a Sanders win tomorrow sends markets down, a Biden win, not so much.
Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
Actually, I think that maybe an understatement
I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.
It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.
I think the tips on this site so far for US 20 by our usual punters have been a bit shit really....
I should have posted here an email from my US friend who emailed to say that Bernie's star would initially shine brightly, Biden would comeback on superTuesday but Warren may well end up being a convention pick..this was months ago, and if I had followed his advice could have made a load of money by now....
Warren might do a bit better than expected if we assume at least some of Amy Klobuchar's voters want a woman president. Other than that thought, I have nothing and am contemplating an early night.
Warren may pick up a few of Klobucar's supporters what just what any female but I think the formal endorsement will keep that down, and its combined with Peats endowment,.
Warren will do well in her home state of Massachusetts, but I think she will be close (but under) to the 15% cut of in a lot of other pleases.
Means our match against Palace isn't postponed on the 21st, which increases our chances of winning the title before the league is postponed for Covid-19.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
I think it'll be bad.
It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.
Who knows.
It would be a little ironic if the baby boomers who have scooped the pool at every stage with free University education, insufficient taxes for the services they have enjoyed and unmatched pension entitlements, never to be seen again, ended out checking out a little early because of a virus.
Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
I think it'll be bad.
It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.
Who knows.
It would be a little ironic if the baby boomers who have scooped the pool at every stage with free University education, insufficient taxes for the services they have enjoyed and unmatched pension entitlements, never to be seen again, ended out checking out a little early because of a virus.
It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.
I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America. Same as after WW2
We already have socialised medicine in the UK and one of Boris' main campaign themes was more money for it, even Trump wants healthcare reform. However waiting in line for your state hand out medical treatment alone is not the solution to healthcare issues, the patient also needs choice, alternative private options and a second opinion
You surely don´t believe anything that Boris Johnson says! He heads a gang of unscrupulous incompetents and liars. Nobody should trust them an inch.
Means our match against Palace isn't postponed on the 21st, which increases our chances of winning the title before the league is postponed for Covid-19.
But it is really nice to see Liverpool get stuffed.
Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?
It’s doing its best to recover towards close, as I suggested it might, but it’s such a weak one that I think holding sell positions overnight is the best play.
There could be some movement because of the Democrats primary poling, showing sanders is down, if not out.
But trying to separate the two is not relay practical at least not for me.
Interesting point. So a Sanders win tomorrow sends markets down, a Biden win, not so much.
Which are people expecting?
possibly, I am only speculating, but also possible that Sanders is seen (accurately or not) as a weaker candidate against Trump, so maybe the revers.
out of interest, have the markets moved before for an unexpected result in the primorys of any party?
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, btart
I think it'll be bad.
It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.
Who knows.
It would be a little ironic if the baby boomers who have scooped the pool at every stage with free University education, insufficient taxes for the services they have enjoyed and unmatched pension entitlements, never to be seen again, ended out checking out a little early because of a virus.
Even over 80s will still have an 80% survival rate and of course far fewer of those baby boomers ever went to university at all compared to their grandchildren, hence they started work earlier and had more to contribute to buying a house and paying for a pension without student debt
Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?
I thought a 'low tern out' meant that fish stocks were getting low.
Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?
Early voting becomes more important?
yes, good point.
talking of which will the states publish the full breakdown of votes, I mean some people will have voted early for Amy or Peat, will we know how may did or will only the results of the candidates still tin the race be counted?
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?
I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.
As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.
Yep, proportionally within state and district, but with a 15% bar. Biden's had quite the surge, which should minimise the CA damage, and give him a shot of winning Texas. If Sanders is only marginally ahead after tonight it's a great night for Biden.
I'm not sure if he'll even win Arkansas anymore. His support is ebbing.
Yes, some very convincing swings in all the polls, including the two national ones showing Biden 3 and 8 points ahead. I lumped on Biden yesterday and see no reason to reverse. Too soon to be sure, but Sanders seems to have had a high floor but a low ceiling, and his success was simply based on the multiple rivals.
Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.
Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.
This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
And a lack of leadership at all levels.
How many times have Biden, Sanders et al mentioned coronovirus and suggested constructive policies ?
Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?
I thought a 'low tern out' meant that fish stocks were getting low.
I'm sorry I don't get that? perhaps this is one of those mistakes a dyslectic makes when nobody prof reads his posts?
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Only HY could argue the analogy rather than take the point
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
Actually, I think that maybe an understatement
I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.
It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.
Its more than just a betting site, its a community. Should we continue the communal conversation we were having on the old thread in the old thread and leave this one abandoned?
Or maybe he should set up "SeriousPoliticalBetting.com" where any non-betting post results in an instant ban.
And to stop CR going off on one, I shall place $500,000 to win on Lucky Dan, 3rd race at Riverside...
Which candidate is best positioned for a health crisis where the US system fairs far worse than the rest of the developed world?
I've not yet entered this market, but I'm tempted to start with going long on Sanders for the presidency.
I asked the other day whether Biden actually has a healthcare plan? No one seems to know.
Just topped up on Biden for POTUS. My thinking is that a major, major crisis will leave voters scared and desperate for experience, stability and normal. Not Crazy Bernie and not 'there is no virus' Trump.
Ike again?
Alternatively it might leave them wanting decisiveness. BIden is the relaxing, reassuring uncle figure, I think, not the man of action.
None of them are decisive. Claiming it’s a hoax, and then promising a million tests you cannot deliver isn’t decisive.
Sanders' maximalist position on healthcare has the potential to sound very decisive to voters in the midst of a crisis, even if he can't get it enacted. It could take the edge off the 'extreme' attacks if voters thought they were in a situation that demanded radical solutions.
It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.
I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America.
Same as after WW2
We already have socialised medicine in the UK and one of Boris' main campaign themes was more money for it, even Trump wants healthcare reform.
However waiting in line for your state hand out medical treatment alone is not the solution to healthcare issues, the patient also needs choice, alternative private options and a second opinion
If you give everyone an income sufficient to afford the private option then it is a choice. Otherwise it is only an option for the privileged few.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
I think it'll be bad.
It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.
Who knows.
It would be a little ironic if the baby boomers who have scooped the pool at every stage with free University education, insufficient taxes for the services they have enjoyed and unmatched pension entitlements, never to be seen again, ended out checking out a little early because of a virus.
There might be some baby boomers who get a larger and quicker inheritance as people in the 80+ age group die.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Ridiculous! Shit happens, its how you deal with it that matters, not trying to prevent all shit from ever happening.
May I extend rcs1000's analogy?
House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?
Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.
Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.
This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.
China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.
This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
And a lack of leadership at all levels.
How many times have Biden, Sanders et al mentioned coronovirus and suggested constructive policies ?
I do think that the US is singularly ill equipped to deal with this kind of crisis...but Trump's hoax comments the other week were staggeringly reckless...and just for that he deserves really to be charged with a high crime and replaced....
Which candidate is best positioned for a health crisis where the US system fairs far worse than the rest of the developed world?
I've not yet entered this market, but I'm tempted to start with going long on Sanders for the presidency.
I asked the other day whether Biden actually has a healthcare plan? No one seems to know.
Just topped up on Biden for POTUS. My thinking is that a major, major crisis will leave voters scared and desperate for experience, stability and normal. Not Crazy Bernie and not 'there is no virus' Trump.
Ike again?
Alternatively it might leave them wanting decisiveness. BIden is the relaxing, reassuring uncle figure, I think, not the man of action.
None of them are decisive. Claiming it’s a hoax, and then promising a million tests you cannot deliver isn’t decisive.
Sanders' maximalist position on healthcare has the potential to sound very decisive to voters in the midst of a crisis, even if he can't get it enacted. It could take the edge off the 'extreme' attacks if voters thought they were in a situation that demanded radical solutions.
It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.
I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America.
Same as after WW2
We already have socialised medicine in the UK and one of Boris' main campaign themes was more money for it, even Trump wants healthcare reform.
However waiting in line for your state hand out medical treatment alone is not the solution to healthcare issues, the patient also needs choice, alternative private options and a second opinion
If you give everyone an income sufficient to afford the private option then it is a choice. Otherwise it is only an option for the privileged few.
So what, there are very few things beyond basic essentials most people can afford.
Plus if you can afford to go private it reduces the pressure on the national healthcare system and the waiting lists accordingly
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
Its not possible to prevent it happening again. This is about the 7th major epidemic of this century so far, epidemics happen its a fact of life.
It is possible to contain and the CDC have failed to do so. That was their job, not preventing it starting in the first place.
Based on history we should expect two more major epidemics at least this decade after this one.
To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?
I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.
As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.
Yep, proportionally within state and district, but with a 15% bar. Biden's had quite the surge, which should minimise the CA damage, and give him a shot of winning Texas. If Sanders is only marginally ahead after tonight it's a great night for Biden.
I'm not sure if he'll even win Arkansas anymore. His support is ebbing.
Yes, some very convincing swings in all the polls, including the two national ones showing Biden 3 and 8 points ahead. I lumped on Biden yesterday and see no reason to reverse. Too soon to be sure, but Sanders seems to have had a high floor but a low ceiling, and his success was simply based on the multiple rivals.
Yes, while there where some early poles conducted that seemed to show that Brine would win the primary in any one on one head. The reality especially with the endowments of Amy and Peat, is that people will move to the centerist.
Also I understand there has been heavy anti-Burny advertising paid for by Bloomberg,
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
I wish you'd stick to posting on things you know something about. What on earth do you mean by 'preventing it happening again?'
If you mean, preventing this COVID virus causing the same damage again, that is highly unlikely as there will be some herd immunity going forward.
If you mean preventing future zoonotic diseases, what you're saying is we should be stopping evolution. Good luck with that.
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
I was tempted to respond to this, but I really can't be bothered tackling this level of ignorance.
At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.
Actually, I think that maybe an understatement
I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.
It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.
Its more than just a betting site, its a community. Should we continue the communal conversation we were having on the old thread in the old thread and leave this one abandoned?
Or maybe he should set up "SeriousPoliticalBetting.com" where any non-betting post results in an instant ban.
And to stop CR going off on one, I shall place $500,000 to win on Lucky Dan, 3rd race at Riverside...
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Was it China's fault that Trump initially stated that Corona virus was a hoax?
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
The owners of houses 1 through 4 who sat out the burning down of the terrace without alerting the hapless residents of house 5 must also bear some of the responsibility.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Ridiculous! Shit happens, its how you deal with it that matters, not trying to prevent all shit from ever happening.
May I extend rcs1000's analogy?
House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?
Shit does not always need to happen no and if you are negligently allowing such shit to happen then it is a major problem.
In terms of the fire brigade it would depend how many fires they had to deal with that night
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Ridiculous! Shit happens, its how you deal with it that matters, not trying to prevent all shit from ever happening.
May I extend rcs1000's analogy?
House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?
Shit does not always need to happen no and if you are negligently allowing such shit to happen then it is a major problem.
In terms of the fire brigade it would depend how many fires they had to deal with that night
It does just happen. Viruses evolve.
None. The CDC have had no other major fires to deal with and they've had months after this outbreak started to react.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
The owners of houses 1 through 4 who sat out the burning down of the terrace without alerting the hapless residents of house 5 must also bear some of the responsibility.
And the people who built/maintained the properties - fire really shouldn't spread like that.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
There was no statement the house was built of especially combustible material.
If the electric blanket was built in a particularly poor fashion then the manufacturer would also bear some responsibility as would of course traders in live animal meat and scientists experimenting on bats in China as well as the Chinese government
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
Its not possible to prevent it happening again. This is about the 7th major epidemic of this century so far, epidemics happen its a fact of life.
It is possible to contain and the CDC have failed to do so. That was their job, not preventing it starting in the first place.
Based on history we should expect two more major epidemics at least this decade after this one.
It is perfectly possible to reduce the risk of it happening again by banning live meat markets and experiments on bats which the Chinese government has refused to do
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Was it China's fault that Trump initially stated that Corona virus was a hoax?
It was China's fault for creating Corona virus in the first place
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
Its not possible to prevent it happening again. This is about the 7th major epidemic of this century so far, epidemics happen its a fact of life.
It is possible to contain and the CDC have failed to do so. That was their job, not preventing it starting in the first place.
Based on history we should expect two more major epidemics at least this decade after this one.
Philip, time to disengage. HYUFD does not understand the concepts of a complex adaptive system, emergent properties and unpredictability.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
I wish you'd stick to posting on things you know something about. What on earth do you mean by 'preventing it happening again?'
If you mean, preventing this COVID virus causing the same damage again, that is highly unlikely as there will be some herd immunity going forward.
If you mean preventing future zoonotic diseases, what you're saying is we should be stopping evolution. Good luck with that.
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be ane they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
I was tempted to respond to this, but I really can't be bothered tackling this level of ignorance.
I will post about whatever I damn well like and it is quite clear that live meat markets and experiments on bats increased the risk of this virus emerging
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
I wish you'd stick to posting on things you know something about. What on earth do you mean by 'preventing it happening again?'
If you mean, preventing this COVID virus causing the same damage again, that is highly unlikely as there will be some herd immunity going forward.
If you mean preventing future zoonotic diseases, what you're saying is we should be stopping evolution. Good luck with that.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It's the sole actor fallacy.
Indeed. In CAS, it is the interactions between components, not the components themselves, that define the properties of the system.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
I think it'll be bad.
It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.
Who knows.
It would be a little ironic if the baby boomers who have scooped the pool at every stage with free University education, insufficient taxes for the services they have enjoyed and unmatched pension entitlements, never to be seen again, ended out checking out a little early because of a virus.
There might be some baby boomers who get a larger and quicker inheritance as people in the 80+ age group die.
Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.
China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China
The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.
No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this
No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives
Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...
The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind
Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.
I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.
A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
And a lack of leadership at all levels.
How many times have Biden, Sanders et al mentioned coronovirus and suggested constructive policies ?
I do think that the US is singularly ill equipped to deal with this kind of crisis...but Trump's hoax comments the other week were staggeringly reckless...and just for that he deserves really to be charged with a high crime and replaced....
Trump's actions have been worse than a crime - they've been a blunder and damaged himself - which is what will really upset him.
But the dreadfulness of Trump does not excuse the lack of preparation by other levels of government.
Much of governance in the USA is probably useless and rotten I suspect irrespective of who is nominally in charge of it.
With a consequence that people become even more distrustful of it.
No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.
You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.
You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place
No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance
I wish you'd stick to posting on things you know something about. What on earth do you mean by 'preventing it happening again?'
If you mean, preventing this COVID virus causing the same damage again, that is highly unlikely as there will be some herd immunity going forward.
If you mean preventing future zoonotic diseases, what you're saying is we should be stopping evolution. Good luck with that.
Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?
Early voting becomes more important?
yes, good point.
talking of which will the states publish the full breakdown of votes, I mean some people will have voted early for Amy or Peat, will we know how may did or will only the results of the candidates still tin the race be counted?
Not sure the demographics but early voting in Texas was the 18th-28th. If we assume that there is no specific demographic or block more inclined to vote than any other the Texan polls show a clear 10pt sanders lead with Bloomberg still a Biden vote drain.
My Stall I've got a small position on Sanders in Texas. I think that early voting will be significant and the Biden Bump is over-played particularly as SC was Biden's perfect state. Sander's Latino vote is big and surprisingly he is still competitive with white moderates as shown in SC. However I wouldn't have taken it at evens...
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
The owners of houses 1 through 4 who sat out the burning down of the terrace without alerting the hapless residents of house 5 must also bear some of the responsibility.
They were high on crystal meth at the time, so they didn't think to warn them.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Ridiculous! Shit happens, its how you deal with it that matters, not trying to prevent all shit from ever happening.
May I extend rcs1000's analogy?
House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?
Shit does not always need to happen no and if you are negligently allowing such shit to happen then it is a major problem.
In terms of the fire brigade it would depend how many fires they had to deal with that night
It does just happen. Viruses evolve.
None. The CDC have had no other major fires to deal with and they've had months after this outbreak started to react.
The Chinese government significantly increased the risk of this virus emerging
I will post about whatever I damn well like and it is quite clear that live meat markets and experiments on bats increased the risk of this virus emerging
Viruses emerge, its a fact of life. How or why the virus emerged is not the CDC's job.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Ridiculous! Shit happens, its how you deal with it that matters, not trying to prevent all shit from ever happening.
May I extend rcs1000's analogy?
House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?
Shit does not always need to happen no and if you are negligently allowing such shit to happen then it is a major problem.
In terms of the fire brigade it would depend how many fires they had to deal with that night
It does just happen. Viruses evolve.
None. The CDC have had no other major fires to deal with and they've had months after this outbreak started to react.
The Chinese government significantly increased the risk of this virus emerging
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It's the sole actor fallacy.
I bet HY will find it a lot easier to brainstorm other explanations after his own electric blanket has burned down half of Chigwell.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
The Guardian says that the 79 deaths were all aged between 63 and 95 with underlying serious illnesses.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
The owners of houses 1 through 4 who sat out the burning down of the terrace without alerting the hapless residents of house 5 must also bear some of the responsibility.
They were high on crystal meth at the time, so they didn't think to warn them.
Which candidate is best positioned for a health crisis where the US system fairs far worse than the rest of the developed world?
I've not yet entered this market, but I'm tempted to start with going long on Sanders for the presidency.
I asked the other day whether Biden actually has a healthcare plan? No one seems to know.
Just topped up on Biden for POTUS. My thinking is that a major, major crisis will leave voters scared and desperate for experience, stability and normal. Not Crazy Bernie and not 'there is no virus' Trump.
Ike again?
Alternatively it might leave them wanting decisiveness. BIden is the relaxing, reassuring uncle figure, I think, not the mame' attacks if voters thought they were in a situation that demanded radical solutions.
It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.
I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America.
Same as after WW2
We already have socialised medicine in the UK and one of Boris' main campaign themes was more money for it, even Trump wants healthcare reform.
However waiting in line for your state hand out medical treatment alone is not the solution to healthcare issues, the patient also needs choice, alternative private options and a second opinion
If you give everyone an income sufficient to afford the private option then it is a choice. Otherwise it is only an option for the privileged few.
So what, there are very few things beyond basic essentials most people can afford.
Plus if you can afford to go private it reduces the pressure on the national healthcare system and the waiting lists accordingly
Oh, it's time to roll out the argument that the privileged few are actually being altruistic and doing the plebs a favour when they jump to the front of the queue.
It is very kind of you to give me a helpful reminder why I am a Socialist.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Was it China's fault that Trump initially stated that Corona virus was a hoax?
It was China's fault for creating Corona virus in the first place
I believe the quote is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
I will post about whatever I damn well like and it is quite clear that live meat markets and experiments on bats increased the risk of this virus emerging
Viruses emerge, its a fact of life. How or why the virus emerged is not the CDC's job.
Do you know what the CDC's job is?
How America contains virus outbreaks to protect Americans is up to America, of more importance to the world is reducing the risk of such virus outbreaks occurring in the first place
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?
I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.
As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.
Yep, proportionally within state and district, but with a 15% bar. Biden's had quite the surge, which should minimise the CA damage, and give him a shot of winning Texas. If Sanders is only marginally ahead after tonight it's a great night for Biden.
I'm not sure if he'll even win Arkansas anymore. His support is ebbing.
Yes, some very convincing swings in all the polls, including the two national ones showing Biden 3 and 8 points ahead. I lumped on Biden yesterday and see no reason to reverse. Too soon to be sure, but Sanders seems to have had a high floor but a low ceiling, and his success was simply based on the multiple rivals.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Was it China's fault that Trump initially stated that Corona virus was a hoax?
It was China's fault for creating Corona virus in the first place
I believe the quote is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
Was it China's fault that Trump initially stated that Corona virus was a hoax?
It was China's fault for creating Corona virus in the first place
I believe the quote is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
Be as patronising and pompous as usual but the fact remains it was China which allowed live animal meat markets to go effectively unregulated and it was China which allowed dangerous live animal testing which allowed the virus to fester
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
The Guardian says that the 79 deaths were all aged between 63 and 95 with underlying serious illnesses.
Is that correct ?
Average age of the Italian dead (up to yesterday) was 80. You can see why that leading Italian doctor said that only a minority of the deaths were actually caused by the virus, the majority simply accelerated (my word).
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
The Guardian says that the 79 deaths were all aged between 63 and 95 with underlying serious illnesses.
Is that correct ?
I don't know but that's above 3% mortality rate, which might substantially rise if some of those currently infected go on to die.
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.
The user should have had it PAT tested.
Yes. My electric blanket is 21 years old and never been serviced or tested. Is that silly?
Which candidate is best positioned for a health crisis where the US system fairs far worse than the rest of the developed world?
I've not yet entered this market, but I'm tempted to start with going long on Sanders for the presidency.
I asked the other day whether Biden actually has a healthcare plan? No one seems to know.
Just topped up on Biden for POTUS. My thinking is that a major, major crisis will leave voters scared and desperate for experience, stability and normal. Not Crazy Bernie and not 'there is no virus' Trump.
Ike again?
Alternatively it might leave them wanting decisiveness. BIden is the relaxing, reassuring uncle figure, I think, not the mame' attacks if voters thought they were in a situation that demanded radical solutions.
It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.
I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America.
Same as after WW2
We already have sociali opinion
If you give everyone an income sufficient to afford the private option then it is a choice. Otherwise it is only an option for the privileged few.
So what, there are very few things beyond basic essentials most people can afford.
Plus if you can afford to go private it reduces the pressure on the national healthcare system and the waiting lists accordingly
'Oh, it's time to roll out the argument that the privileged few are actually being altruistic and doing the plebs a favour when they jump to the front of the queue.
It is very kind of you to give me a helpful reminder why I am a Socialist. '
Get on your high horse then but expanding ever larger waiting lists and preventing patient choice will not help anyone get the treatment they deserve more quickly, even if it does make you feel good about enforcing your socialist ideology
Incidentally I've had a real life equivalent of rcs1000's analogy. Nearly a decade ago while asleep in our house which at the time was the end house of a mews a very serious fire started 4 doors down. We were woken up by the fire brigade banging very, very loudly on all the doors shouting "Fire! Everyone out! Fire! Everyone Out!" repeatedly
The fire brigade did their job and ensured the entire block had been evacuated. That is part of what the fire brigade is there for. One of my neighbours was away so they returned home to a boarded up front door as when nobody left their house the fire brigade broke the door down not taking any chances that anyone might be asleep inside.
This fire was not accidental, it was arson and they set alight the gas pipe into one of my neighbours house so the arsonist was most definitely responsible. But if the fire brigade knowing there was a fire in the middle of the night had not bothered to turn up (when they could) or having done so did not bother to evacuate or warn the people in the buildings while watching them burn down then they would have been negligent too. Instead they were professional and did their job thankfully.
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
Italy is seriously close to matching China in number of dead today. What on earth is going on?
229 in intensive care 1034 in hospital 1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
The Guardian says that the 79 deaths were all aged between 63 and 95 with underlying serious illnesses.
Is that correct ?
Average age of the Italian dead (up to yesterday) was 80. You can see why that leading Italian doctor said that only a minority of the deaths were actually caused by the virus, the majority simply accelerated (my word).
So their deaths were caused by the virus, otherwise they'd still be alive now. Bloody experts!
Does anyone have a link for when the exit poll will be released?
There is no one exit poll, as multiple states are voting and multiple exit polls will emerge from when Maine stops voting at 12am our time to when California stops voting at 3am our time
Comments
Carrying on with Philips analogy you want to sort his weight out to ensure he doesn't have a heart attack in the future. However because no ambulance turned up (as per Philip) he has died!
Not a lot of point in ensuring he doesn't die next time if he is already dead is there?
Ironically as this sounds but the best thing might be that there is a mutated strain of the virus, no worse than a miled cold for most, that is complacently out of control and spreading rapidly, thus effectively 'vaccinating' inadvertently but rapidly.
Unlikely in the UK or it would have shown up in all the testing that has been done.
And to stop CR going off on one, I shall place $500,000 to win on Lucky Dan, 3rd race at Riverside...
I'm not sure if he'll even win Arkansas anymore. His support is ebbing.
That's what has happened in America. People who never even travelled are dead because of the absence of testing those who were returning to America.
Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start
The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.
The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.
Also worth remembering that delegates are allocated by congregational district, with a few also allocated at the state level.
if a candidate gets 15.5% in a state there could easily be half of the CDs where they have less than 15% so they will come away with few Delights, but a candidate with 14.5% will also probably get some.
If all bar one candidate get over the 15% cut off (in a CD or State), then it in effect becomes a 'winner take all' which a week ago some places like California looked lick being.
A bunch of monarchists pontificating on PB about a nation that ELECTS its head of state.
It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.
Who knows.
Which are people expecting?
"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."
Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?
Warren will do well in her home state of Massachusetts, but I think she will be close (but under) to the 15% cut of in a lot of other pleases.
Means our match against Palace isn't postponed on the 21st, which increases our chances of winning the title before the league is postponed for Covid-19.
out of interest, have the markets moved before for an unexpected result in the primorys of any party?
talking of which will the states publish the full breakdown of votes, I mean some people will have voted early for Amy or Peat, will we know how may did or will only the results of the candidates still tin the race be counted?
May I use an analogy?
On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.
In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.
In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.
Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
How many times have Biden, Sanders et al mentioned coronovirus and suggested constructive policies ?
Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility
May I extend rcs1000's analogy?
House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?
Ignore.
Plus if you can afford to go private it reduces the pressure on the national healthcare system and the waiting lists accordingly
You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.
It is possible to contain and the CDC have failed to do so. That was their job, not preventing it starting in the first place.
Based on history we should expect two more major epidemics at least this decade after this one.
Also I understand there has been heavy anti-Burny advertising paid for by Bloomberg,
If you mean, preventing this COVID virus causing the same damage again, that is highly unlikely as there will be some herd immunity going forward.
If you mean preventing future zoonotic diseases, what you're saying is we should be stopping evolution. Good luck with that. I was tempted to respond to this, but I really can't be bothered tackling this level of ignorance.
‘There’s been a mistake, gimme my money back’
Ya folla?
In terms of the fire brigade it would depend how many fires they had to deal with that night
2502 infected since the beginning of the outbreak
160 healed
79 dead
229 in intensive care
1034 in hospital
1000 isolated at home
Regional breakdown
1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata
None. The CDC have had no other major fires to deal with and they've had months after this outbreak started to react.
If the electric blanket was built in a particularly poor fashion then the manufacturer would also bear some responsibility as would of course traders in live animal meat and scientists experimenting on bats in China as well as the Chinese government
https://www.mpnnow.com/news/20200128/dr-gifford-jones-people-are-dying-needlessly-of-coronavirus?fbclid=IwAR2DoOIfnTVBtcs-mkCXwlFLHvntY3OtFlL-4ggY4-sqz3-2NCGPRK0OnLE
But the dreadfulness of Trump does not excuse the lack of preparation by other levels of government.
Much of governance in the USA is probably useless and rotten I suspect irrespective of who is nominally in charge of it.
With a consequence that people become even more distrustful of it.
My Stall
I've got a small position on Sanders in Texas. I think that early voting will be significant and the Biden Bump is over-played particularly as SC was Biden's perfect state. Sander's Latino vote is big and surprisingly he is still competitive with white moderates as shown in SC. However I wouldn't have taken it at evens...
Didn't I mention that in my original post?
Do you know what the CDC's job is?
Is that correct ?
https://twitter.com/godblesstoto/status/1234945536190447617?s=21
Plus if you can afford to go private it reduces the pressure on the national healthcare system and the waiting lists accordingly
Oh, it's time to roll out the argument that the privileged few are actually being altruistic and doing the plebs a favour when they jump to the front of the queue.
It is very kind of you to give me a helpful reminder why I am a Socialist.
It is very kind of you to give me a helpful reminder why I am a Socialist. '
Get on your high horse then but expanding ever larger waiting lists and preventing patient choice will not help anyone get the treatment they deserve more quickly, even if it does make you feel good about enforcing your socialist ideology
The fire brigade did their job and ensured the entire block had been evacuated. That is part of what the fire brigade is there for. One of my neighbours was away so they returned home to a boarded up front door as when nobody left their house the fire brigade broke the door down not taking any chances that anyone might be asleep inside.
This fire was not accidental, it was arson and they set alight the gas pipe into one of my neighbours house so the arsonist was most definitely responsible. But if the fire brigade knowing there was a fire in the middle of the night had not bothered to turn up (when they could) or having done so did not bother to evacuate or warn the people in the buildings while watching them burn down then they would have been negligent too. Instead they were professional and did their job thankfully.