At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
You also backed SCons at 10-15 and 15-20 mps at the last GE didn't you?
That makes me a bit depressed about SNP prospects.
Yes, I thought they were value (I also bet on 250-299 Tory seats for a similar reason by the way) as I thought they’d be sticky in defence as Unionist voters coalesced to block the SNP but that didn’t transpire.
I ended up making quite a nice sum on the night as I adjusted.
You can point to bets I’ve got wrong in every single election but it’s the overall profit that I’m looking for.
The difference is Holyrood has PR not just FPTP like Westminster so easier for the SNP to lose its majority at Holyrood.
5 Unionist gains from the SNP and Greens would give a Unionist majority next year even with SNP most seats still
I see despite you becoming a Wings fan that you don't seem to be expecting any gains for his new party.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Yes, that is much clearer but it remains a period when the CPS very badly failed thousands of very vulnerable children with new guidelines or not. What this does show is that he was aware of the problem. The results of his intervention were extremely disappointing until well after he left. So I think he has serious questions to answer about this but that particular clip is misleading in the extreme.
Quite. Apart from the misleading clip - The entire pyramid of relevant portions of government were aware. People on the ground, up to MPs and ministers.
I suspect that this falls under the TooManyToBlame portfolio - particularly since too many ciivil servants would get caught in the net...
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
What? We do not know whether the sentrence starts "The key principles to which I will stick through thick and thin are..." or "The most egregious among the many mistakes we have made are..." But clearly you do, so which is it?
Obviously closer to the second or Dorries wouldn't have clipped the video so heavily. We've got thousands dieing with the LOTO doing a good job and Nad drags up a misleading clip from a decade ago ? Have a think.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Hard for the Sun to go downmarket, but it has. Boris will sleep a little more sweetly.
Harry is an excellent choice. Superb journalist.
You like Tory Bear. 🤷♂️
You dislike him for the same reasons?
Never had much time for the Guido/ToryBear gang. Right wing tabloid/gutter journalism surprisingly ain't my bag. He will no doubt be an asset to the Boris in the Sun.
I think lumping him in with Guido is a bit much.
Eh? He was editor at Guido.
He was but he’s not the same as him.
He’s his own man.
Good grief. That argument is a hell of a stretch. It’s ok to lump the editor of Guido in with Guido.
He hasn't been its news editor since 2015. And he did that role as part of building his career, which is understandable for an aspiring journalist.
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.
Correction, Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE 02 and the Hillary states would be enough for Biden to win the Electoral College but not Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
I think one of the wrong assumptions to make is that Biden will automatically win all the states that Hillary did. Minnesota is an obvious example here given the shift of the votes but to me one that could be interesting is Virginia - not a huge amount of difference last time and the demographics have shifted more to the Democrats over the years but there have been a lot of protests against the actions of the Democrat-led state government over topics such as abortion, gun control etc. That might tip a higher turnout to Trump in November.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Given he was DPP from 2008-2013, I'd suggest a fair amount of that happened on his watch. One might say he was "asleep at the wheel".
Don't you think Tory ministers rt-ing dubiously edited clips blunts rather than sharpens attacks in this area (however justified)?
I don't know. I certainly don't condone such skulduggery and I think Dorries should be very careful.
I said yesterday that I don't think Starmer's time as DPP will make much difference, but I would say that it's very much fair game for the Tories to talk about it.
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
What? We do not know whether the sentrence starts "The key principles to which I will stick through thick and thin are..." or "The most egregious among the many mistakes we have made are..." But clearly you do, so which is it?
Obviously closer to the second or Dorries wouldn't have clipped the video so heavily. We've got thousands dieing with the LOTO doing a good job and Nad drags up a misleading clip from a decade ago ? Have a think.
I quite agree! I genuinwely didn't know which it was (because I wasn't sure even Nads could be that stupid).
SKS is dangerous. His PMQs need work - too verbose and not following up enough at the moment, but that's only the first two of >100 between now and election time.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Yes, that is much clearer but it remains a period when the CPS very badly failed thousands of very vulnerable children with new guidelines or not. What this does show is that he was aware of the problem. The results of his intervention were extremely disappointing until well after he left. So I think he has serious questions to answer about this but that particular clip is misleading in the extreme.
Serious straw clutching from the desperate going on here methinks.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
Yes, it's a good warning. And I'd argue that isn't confirmation bias (above) but running from one bias to another: emotionally preparing yourself for the worst. In other words, letting your emotions run riot either way is bad.
@SouthamObserver is a good example of this as he always starts from assuming his least favourite political outcome is nailed-on as a way of managing his expectations. Co-incidentally, over recent years, he's also been right. That doesn't mean his analysis is bad (he's an intelligent guy and makes great points) but we know that.
Good examples of top punters/analysts on here who can divorce the two (in my view) are Quincel, Pulpstar, Robert Smithson, Alasdair, Alastair Meeks, and AndyJS.
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.
Correction, Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE 02 and the Hillary states would be enough for Biden to win the Electoral College but not Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
I think one of the wrong assumptions to make is that Biden will automatically win all the states that Hillary did. Minnesota is an obvious example here given the shift of the votes but to me one that could be interesting is Virginia - not a huge amount of difference last time and the demographics have shifted more to the Democrats over the years but there have been a lot of protests against the actions of the Democrat-led state government over topics such as abortion, gun control etc. That might tip a higher turnout to Trump in November.
Yes, also she had a Virginia senator on the ticket which *probably* doesn't help when they're from a big state like that but who knows.
OTOH, IIUC it's been gradually trending Dem for a while, so the demographics are on Biden's side.
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.
Correction, Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE 02 and the Hillary states would be enough for Biden to win the Electoral College but not Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
I think one of the wrong assumptions to make is that Biden will automatically win all the states that Hillary did. Minnesota is an obvious example here given the shift of the votes but to me one that could be interesting is Virginia - not a huge amount of difference last time and the demographics have shifted more to the Democrats over the years but there have been a lot of protests against the actions of the Democrat-led state government over topics such as abortion, gun control etc. That might tip a higher turnout to Trump in November.
Possibly, though most likely if Trump wins Minnesota and Virginia he has won anyway.
Otherwise Pennsylvania and Michigan are the key tipping point states, with Pennsylvania perhaps playing the role Florida did in 2000 or Ohio in 2004
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's gone
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?
I will vote Tory as usual
That party no longer exists. You can vote for Boris Johnson's Popular Front of Little England if you like.
On Starmer vs Scotland, one of my friends said that a Starmer majority in 2024 would be exactly what we need to save the Union and if Starmer proved to be not terrible he'd consider voting for Labour for the first time since 2001 (when he became old enough to vote). He's been reliably and solidly conservative since then, was even a member for a while.
One thing we might see as a result of the rona is more people young, educated people who find they can work remotely moving out of big cities and into smaller places with better standards of living, or where they have families. In general this sounds like it would help undo the great Democratic self-gerrymander, but it could throw up some weird shifts, especially if people stop going to universities.
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.
Correction, Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE 02 and the Hillary states would be enough for Biden to win the Electoral College but not Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
I think one of the wrong assumptions to make is that Biden will automatically win all the states that Hillary did. Minnesota is an obvious example here given the shift of the votes but to me one that could be interesting is Virginia - not a huge amount of difference last time and the demographics have shifted more to the Democrats over the years but there have been a lot of protests against the actions of the Democrat-led state government over topics such as abortion, gun control etc. That might tip a higher turnout to Trump in November.
Yes, also she had a Virginia senator on the ticket which *probably* doesn't help when they're from a big state like that but who knows.
OTOH, IIUC it's been gradually trending Dem for a while, so the demographics are on Biden's side.
Virginia always looks like it's going to go GOP early on on election night, till Richmond and the DC suburbs start reporting...
North Carolina is the opposite, the rural areas there tend to report later than the population (Democrat) centres.
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.
Correction, Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE 02 and the Hillary states would be enough for Biden to win the Electoral College but not Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
I think one of the wrong assumptions to make is that Biden will automatically win all the states that Hillary did. Minnesota is an obvious example here given the shift of the votes but to me one that could be interesting is Virginia - not a huge amount of difference last time and the demographics have shifted more to the Democrats over the years but there have been a lot of protests against the actions of the Democrat-led state government over topics such as abortion, gun control etc. That might tip a higher turnout to Trump in November.
New Hampshire is another one of the Clinton 2016 states to keep an eye on. Winning margin of only 0.37% and has a Republican governor to tip the scales in Trump's favour.
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
Has SKS even mentioned Scotland once since becoming leader ?
On Starmer vs Scotland, one of my friends said that a Starmer majority in 2024 would be exactly what we need to save the Union and if Starmer proved to be not terrible he'd consider voting for Labour for the first time since 2001 (when he became old enough to vote). He's been reliably and solidly conservative since then, was even a member for a while.
Starmer and the LDs would also take us back into the single market even short of a Starmer majority and the SNP could hardly oppose that, though it would ruin their hopes of a Yes vote to independence
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
A blind deaf and dumb man would agree with that. Labour in Scotland is deader than a dodo and some poncy London Lawyer will not resurrect them for sure.
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's gone
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?
I will vote Tory as usual
That party no longer exists. You can vote for Boris Johnson's Popular Front of Little England if you like.
The Tory Party still exists, I even voted for it in the European elections the Brexit Party won.
It just brought most of the Brexit Party vote back into the Tory tent
The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
Whilst I can understand the temptation to look at this from the perspective of the business owner who has had his or her life's work and savings wiped out through no fault of their own I don't think that the government should. What the government needs to do is to work out what parts of our economy (a) have a long term future and (b) need short term help to survive.
Virgin Atlantic seem to me to fail (a) because it is difficult to imagine sufficient demand for their services for the next 5 years plus. This seems to me a better way of determining whether there should be state support than Branson being a tosser. To a certain extent it needs the government to pick winners, not in terms of individual companies but in terms of sectors. What do we actually need? This should drive the government not only to supporting existing businesses but to help new ones which are going to bring key elements of manufacturing capacity (for example) back onshore where this is in the national interest.
I agree completely - my point about Branson was more that I think the government will find it easier to throw him under a bus than a pub owner.
The really tricky sector: banks.
Banks are a nightmare and we will pay the price of not locking up several hundred bankers after 2008 for fraud and malfeasance. There was far too much business as usual after that calamity and I see people being extremely reluctant to tolerate that again but they remain an essential service.
+1
It remains something of a mystery to me how "working people" in the aftermath of the banking crash became more animated about cutting immigration and leaving the EU than about stamping on the City.
One thing we might see as a result of the rona is more people young, educated people who find they can work remotely moving out of big cities and into smaller places with better standards of living, or where they have families. In general this sounds like it would help undo the great Democratic self-gerrymander, but it could throw up some weird shifts, especially if people stop going to universities.
I'm definitely thinking about this - but we have to see whether bosses allow workers to do this. Generation rent likely to be quicker to move on this than those with mortgages already.
There should be a win-win balance somewhere in terms of reduced office costs, being able to hire a wider pool of talent, lower salary requirements/lower cost of living...
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Given he was DPP from 2008-2013, I'd suggest a fair amount of that happened on his watch. One might say he was "asleep at the wheel".
That's a reasonable point to make. But I think it also shows the whole thing is very tricky. If you rely on the credibility of witnesses in evaluating the credibility of the allegations they make, which is normal, you have a problem when witnesses that are unreliable in other ways make allegations that turn out to be true.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Yes, that is much clearer but it remains a period when the CPS very badly failed thousands of very vulnerable children with new guidelines or not. What this does show is that he was aware of the problem. The results of his intervention were extremely disappointing until well after he left. So I think he has serious questions to answer about this but that particular clip is misleading in the extreme.
I'd agree. I vaguely remember several here (including me) questioning Starmer's role at the time, but I can't recall anything conclusive coming out. Given the Conservatives have been in government for the last decade, this kind of smear, as opposed to a proper investigation of the role of the CPS, is pretty low stuff.
There were massive failings across government, and it was only sustained media investigation (the Times in particular was admirable in this respect) which produced action.
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
A blind deaf and dumb man would agree with that. Labour in Scotland is deader than a dodo and some poncy London Lawyer will not resurrect them for sure.
Yea, well I wouldn't expect someone as blinkered as you to agree: your ability to objectively assess an opponent is about as idiotic and self deluded as the thickest Bozo fanbois that come on here. Blair was a poncy London Lawyer (though he claims to be Scottish) and he did quite well against the Little Scotlanders of the SNP
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
I am not sure that you are stripping out any bias.
The problem is, that looking from the outside - "How can anyone vote for Trump?"
- Yet he is still competitive. - Biden seems to be the worst possible pick for the Democrats. - Trump is down in various states, but not by a lethal margin.
The question is whether he will managed to break through his own "Red Wall". Biden does not seem to be able to do this.
The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
Whilst I can understand the temptation to look at this from the perspective of the business owner who has had his or her life's work and savings wiped out through no fault of their own I don't think that the government should. What the government needs to do is to work out what parts of our economy (a) have a long term future and (b) need short term help to survive.
Virgin Atlantic seem to me to fail (a) because it is difficult to imagine sufficient demand for their services for the next 5 years plus. This seems to me a better way of determining whether there should be state support than Branson being a tosser. To a certain extent it needs the government to pick winners, not in terms of individual companies but in terms of sectors. What do we actually need? This should drive the government not only to supporting existing businesses but to help new ones which are going to bring key elements of manufacturing capacity (for example) back onshore where this is in the national interest.
I agree completely - my point about Branson was more that I think the government will find it easier to throw him under a bus than a pub owner.
The really tricky sector: banks.
Banks are a nightmare and we will pay the price of not locking up several hundred bankers after 2008 for fraud and malfeasance. There was far too much business as usual after that calamity and I see people being extremely reluctant to tolerate that again but they remain an essential service.
+1
It remains something of a mystery to me how "working people" in the aftermath of the banking crash became more animated about cutting immigration and leaving the EU than about stamping on the City.
False consciousness, I believe, is the term.
The banks were hard core remain. I even had Goldman Sachs support for Remain mentioned as a reason for Leave.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
Easier to say that anyone who claims to be free of confirmation bias is, to some extent, fooling themself.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Given he was DPP from 2008-2013, I'd suggest a fair amount of that happened on his watch. One might say he was "asleep at the wheel".
That's a reasonable point to make. But I think it also shows the whole thing is very tricky. If you rely on the credibility of witnesses in evaluating the credibility of the allegations they make, which is normal, you have a problem when witnesses that are unreliable in other ways make allegations that turn out to be true.
True, though it's remarkable how successful the CPS has been at getting convictions against gangs in the last few years.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
I am not sure that you are stripping out any bias.
The problem is, that looking from the outside - "How can anyone vote for Trump?"
- Yet he is still competitive. - Biden seems to be the worst possible pick for the Democrats. - Trump is down in various states, but not by a lethal margin.
The question is whether he will managed to break through his own "Red Wall". Biden does not seem to be able to do this.
Would Warren or Sanders or Bloomberg or Harris or Buttigieg have had a better chance of beating Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania than Biden? Very unlikely
A MAN and woman have been arrested after they were 'found walking down a street carrying a human torso in a suitcase'. Police have now launched a murder probe - with reports other body parts have been found in the surrounding area in the Forest of Dean, Glos.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Yes, that is much clearer but it remains a period when the CPS very badly failed thousands of very vulnerable children with new guidelines or not. What this does show is that he was aware of the problem. The results of his intervention were extremely disappointing until well after he left. So I think he has serious questions to answer about this but that particular clip is misleading in the extreme.
I'd agree. I vaguely remember several here (including me) questioning Starmer's role at the time, but I can't recall anything conclusive coming out. Given the Conservatives have been in government for the last decade, this kind of smear, as opposed to a proper investigation of the role of the CPS, is pretty low stuff.
There were massive failings across government, and it was only sustained media investigation (the Times in particular was admirable in this respect) which produced action.
The reason that more blame was not handed out was that too many permanent employees of the government would have been in the firing line.
This is a constant of various scandals going back decades.
On a related, comic note. I mentioned an aquaintance who is being penalised for doing her job - getting part of the Nightingale hospital thing to work. She tells me that certain managers are furious at the following -
They have heard that ministers will not accept responsibility for actions where those actions were contrary to explicit instructions from said minister
Yes, that's right. They think that if the minister says do A, they do B, the minister should take responsibility for B.
Interesting discussion with my eldest's mum about him going to university in September. With no real clue about timings of things lifting or how practically they will work or even if they can operate normally from September the deadline to apply for student finance is the end of this month...
I am happy to offer subsidy to him running a gap year if he works - as he wants to get into teaching conversations have started with his old primary and high schools about spending half an academic year volunteering with each. But the uncertainty is the real problem - his mum is desperately worried about him going off to uni with lots of students from all over the country living and studying in close proximity, I am worried about his ongoing mental health as time ticks along with little ability for him to socialise.
As I understand it for undergraduate student finance the application deadline is: Course start date: Between 1 August and 31 December Apply by: 31 May after your course started, i.e. 31 May 2021 for a course starting in September this year.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Given he was DPP from 2008-2013, I'd suggest a fair amount of that happened on his watch. One might say he was "asleep at the wheel".
That's a reasonable point to make. But I think it also shows the whole thing is very tricky. If you rely on the credibility of witnesses in evaluating the credibility of the allegations they make, which is normal, you have a problem when witnesses that are unreliable in other ways make allegations that turn out to be true.
One might also make the point that the Crown Prosecution Service is to an extent at one step removed from the evidence - particularly when you have both the Police and Local Authorities, who are directly engaged with the victims, dismissing, and in some cases actively covering up their complaints.
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's gone
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?
I will vote Tory as usual
That party no longer exists. You can vote for Boris Johnson's Popular Front of Little England if you like.
The Tory Party still exists, I even voted for it in the European elections the Brexit Party won.
It just brought most of the Brexit Party vote back into the Tory tent
Nope, it was a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party. Most of the loons and lightweights that make up the current cabinet would get a ringing endorsement from El Duce Nige. The Tory party was a big tent party. You could fit the combined intellect of the folk that now run it into a very small echo chamber inside a very very small teepee. The real Tory Party is dead, sadly. It was murdered by your mate Boris Johnson and his psychopath best buddy.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
If you think Starmer has questions to ask about the job he did on the child abuse cases he dealt with as DPP the last thing you should do is what those Tory MPs did today. They have made it less likely this will become an issue.
He can now do that an unlimited number of times and be assured he's still following official Gov't guidance from wednesday, unless he's living in Wales or Scotland.
Is it British common sense to Tweet defamatory doctored videos of an eminent QC and former Director of Public Prosecutions?
I think Starmer (and supporters) should ignore. It means talking about something other than current govt failings. Tories being underhand isn't really news in any case.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
I am not sure that you are stripping out any bias.
The problem is, that looking from the outside - "How can anyone vote for Trump?"
- Yet he is still competitive. - Biden seems to be the worst possible pick for the Democrats. - Trump is down in various states, but not by a lethal margin.
The question is whether he will managed to break through his own "Red Wall". Biden does not seem to be able to do this.
Would Warren or Sanders or Bloomberg or Harris or Buttigieg have had a better chance of beating Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania than Biden? Very unlikely
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Given he was DPP from 2008-2013, I'd suggest a fair amount of that happened on his watch. One might say he was "asleep at the wheel".
That's a reasonable point to make. But I think it also shows the whole thing is very tricky. If you rely on the credibility of witnesses in evaluating the credibility of the allegations they make, which is normal, you have a problem when witnesses that are unreliable in other ways make allegations that turn out to be true.
One might also make the point that the Crown Prosecution Service is to an extent at one step removed from the evidence - particularly when you have both the Police and Local Authorities, who are directly engaged with the victims, dismissing, and in some cases actively covering up their complaints.
People knew at all levels of the system. Politicians were privately discussing it. There was even a half-baked attempt to pass a law which would (accidentally!) have made reporting the issue illegal.
Some of the accounts of I-knew-but-I-didn't-know are a very interesting study in the phscology of dealing with facts that are contrary to ones world view and vital interests.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
Yes, it's a good warning. And I'd argue that isn't confirmation bias (above) but running from one bias to another: emotionally preparing yourself for the worst. In other words, letting your emotions run riot either way is bad.
@SouthamObserver is a good example of this as he always starts from assuming his least favourite political outcome is nailed-on as a way of managing his expectations. Co-incidentally, over recent years, he's also been right. That doesn't mean his analysis is bad (he's an intelligent guy and makes great points) but we know that.
Good examples of top punters/analysts on here who can divorce the two (in my view) are Quincel, Pulpstar, Robert Smithson, Alasdair, Alastair Meeks, and AndyJS.
Another great example - all of those PB Tories in the run-up to Dec 12th, predicting a hung parliament (or only a very narrow Con win) in the face of all logic.
But, yes, in general, it is not advisable to bet big money if you can't keep emotion in the passenger seat.
I think confirmation bias is best understood outside of betting and in relation to values and beliefs about the world. There, you see it all the time and it is always in the same direction. People look for evidence that supports their views. Everyone does it, we're not machines, and it's only a problem if it gets to be a problem, if you know what I mean.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's gone
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?
I will vote Tory as usual
That party no longer exists. You can vote for Boris Johnson's Popular Front of Little England if you like.
The Tory Party still exists, I even voted for it in the European elections the Brexit Party won.
It just brought most of the Brexit Party vote back into the Tory tent
Nope, it was a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party. Most of the loons and lightweights that make up the current cabinet would get a ringing endorsement from El Duce Nige. The Tory party was a big tent party. You could fit the combined intellect of the folk that now run it into a very small echo chamber inside a very very small teepee. The real Tory Party is dead, sadly. It was murdered by your mate Boris Johnson and his psychopath best buddy.
Couldn't agree more; I became a member at 18 in 2004 and was an active supporter all the through the years until mid-2018. I walked countless Croydon Central streets delivering leaflets and canvassing in 2017. I was interviewing to run as a local counsellor by the end of 2017 too.
However by mid-2018 I had fully come to understand that as a practicing Christian, finance professional and with a European spouse the party didn't want me and I didn't particularly want it and so that was that. I haven't voted for them and since and as long as the current crop of Brextremists are running the show I never will.
Those assumptions and conditionality of help and support are obviously appalling but it is very far from clear from that clip whether Starmer is reporting a highly regrettable historic position or his own position. I just can't tell.
Starmer was saying that the previous focus on the credibility of the witnesses rather than the credibility of the allegations themselves was wrong. That was why he was changing the guidelines. He was asked for examples of where things were going wrong. The list in that clip was his reply to that question. I would say Nadine Dorris is flirting with a libel case in reposting that clip.
A longer extract of the interview here makes it clear that Starmer's intent was to change this situation.
Given he was DPP from 2008-2013, I'd suggest a fair amount of that happened on his watch. One might say he was "asleep at the wheel".
That's a reasonable point to make. But I think it also shows the whole thing is very tricky. If you rely on the credibility of witnesses in evaluating the credibility of the allegations they make, which is normal, you have a problem when witnesses that are unreliable in other ways make allegations that turn out to be true.
One might also make the point that the Crown Prosecution Service is to an extent at one step removed from the evidence - particularly when you have both the Police and Local Authorities, who are directly engaged with the victims, dismissing, and in some cases actively covering up their complaints.
People knew at all levels of the system. Politicians were privately discussing it. There was even a half-baked attempt to pass a law which would (accidentally!) have made reporting the issue illegal.
Some of the accounts of I-knew-but-I-didn't-know are a very interesting study in the psychology of dealing with facts that are contrary to ones world view and vital interests.
Agreed. The only people to come out of it creditably were a few individuals who fought against the system, and a fairly small number of very persistent journalists. And some very brave victims who waived anonymity.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
Easier to say that anyone who claims to be free of confirmation bias is, to some extent, fooling themself.
Unless it is Mr Spock - and even then he's only half and half.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
Unfortunately I think their central assumption is flawed. The health authorities have said they are concentrating countermeasures in areas with the highest infection rates, so there are other reasons to suppose that R will be lower in those areas than post-infection immunity alone.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
The briefing the government scientists gave they made it clear that it was well below what they thought it was. I believe what they briefed is they still think it is in single digits nationally.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
I read somewhere there is updated figures coming today. They are still expected to show national figure to be single figures.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
The briefing the government scientists gave they made it clear that it was well below what they thought it was. I believe what they briefed is they still think it is in single digits nationally.
Tbh, I'd wait until we have mass antibody testing before listening to anything. In other countries where they have rolled it out we've seen higher than expected levels of immunity, I don't see why the UK would be any different. If anything I'd expect some parts to start approaching herd immunity because the lockdown has been so lax.
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's gone
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?
I will vote Tory as usual
That party no longer exists. You can vote for Boris Johnson's Popular Front of Little England if you like.
The Tory Party still exists, I even voted for it in the European elections the Brexit Party won.
It just brought most of the Brexit Party vote back into the Tory tent
Nope, it was a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party. Most of the loons and lightweights that make up the current cabinet would get a ringing endorsement from El Duce Nige. The Tory party was a big tent party. You could fit the combined intellect of the folk that now run it into a very small echo chamber inside a very very small teepee. The real Tory Party is dead, sadly. It was murdered by your mate Boris Johnson and his psychopath best buddy.
All very well but had the Tories stuck with May and her Withdrawal Agreement and not delivered Brexit they would have been obliterated at the next general election under FPTP as the Canadian Tories were in 1993 with the Brexit Party replacing them as the main party of the right as the Reform Party did in Canada.
Of course in Canada the Reform Party effectively took over the Tories there too to create the Conservative Party of Canada in the early 2000s.
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
I read somewhere there is updated figures coming today. They are still expected to show national figure to be single figures.
2pm - The Office for National Statistics publishes the first regular results of its Covid-19 infection survey in England.
Of course, now that they have finally approved a serology test, it ought not to be awfully long before we have some numbers which are considerably better than educated guesses.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
I thought the same at first, but on running a few numbers it's probably not a large difference, maybe +35% more compared to a month ago (because during that time daily infection count has dropped 4x)
What's that in response to? The 14 day quarantine period? Nothing has changed fo EU citizens otherwise.
If I'm reading it right the threat is that a "reasoned opinion" will be sent to the UK if nothing is done within 4 months.
A period of reflection from the EU might be appreciated.
Or, maybe, they could try and procure some ventilators?
I can assure you that we are in no position to gloat regarding ventilators. Our government's attempt to give a PR coup to Dyson and JCB was pathetic. None of the peabrains in the cabinet realised there is a big difference between a highly calibrated and regulated ventilator and a vacuum cleaner or digger.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
I thought the same at first, but on running a few numbers it's probably not a large difference, maybe +35% more compared to a month ago (because during that time daily infection count has dropped 4x)
I have just read that Tuscany have found 0.5% of the population has had the virus out of running 179,000 blood tests...of these tests they found 5 had the virus currently....healthcare staff..the number goes unto 1.1%
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
Easier to say that anyone who claims to be free of confirmation bias is, to some extent, fooling themself.
Unless it is Mr Spock - and even then he's only half and half.
No - he has a completely unsupported belief in the primacy of reason.
At present, Biden is on a path to cruising to a bruising.
Yes, he's not Hillary. But he could lose for very different reasons to Hillary.
Nah, this is basically the only data point showing anything except Biden cruising to a win, and it's sample size of like 300 or something that probably isn't balanced by anything in particular. I mean, Trump is creative and audacious and anything could happen etc etc etc, but the data says that Biden is winning.
Another complacent in a state of denial.
Polls up until now have effectively been mid-term, and meaningless. Now, as the candidates firm up and November hoves into view, we're starting to see a bit of a change.
Impossible to discriminate those effects from effects of CV19 on the polls.
The good thing about me is that I’m free of confirmation bias when it comes to Trump.
Other punters are riddled with it on this site. They simply hate him too much.
Please don't inject toilet duck.
You see, that’s what I mean.
I don’t take him seriously and I don’t want him to win but I understand him and his appeal and sympathise with those who are drawn to him.
People don’t say or admit this anywhere (because of the social consequences) but those 60 million+ votes don’t just come out of nowhere.
Based on most of your posts it would appear your politics are very sympathetic, so I don't think you are "free of confirmation bias". You are probably just too embarrassed to admit you are a fan, and would vote for him if your were a citizen of the USA.
Confirmation bias means allowing your personal opinions to influence your analysis and decision making, in this case on this site in the matter of betting on politics.
I am free of confirmation bias in that sense and have made quite a bit of money as a result. My record should hopefully speak for itself.
If you want another example, I’m betting on the SNP to win a majority at Holyrood next year despite being a staunch Unionist.
I think you're interpreting confirmation bias in the diametrically wrong way as it applies to betting.
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
I am not sure that you are stripping out any bias.
The problem is, that looking from the outside - "How can anyone vote for Trump?"
- Yet he is still competitive. - Biden seems to be the worst possible pick for the Democrats. - Trump is down in various states, but not by a lethal margin.
The question is whether he will managed to break through his own "Red Wall". Biden does not seem to be able to do this.
I'm not - I can't strip out my own bias - but I'm saying that somebody else, when assessing how to process my view, can do so.
And rather than say "he hates Trump so he's bound to think he'll lose" it should more be the opposite - "he hates Trump so he's probably if anything underplaying the chance of his losing."
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Figures from Spain show only 5% overall with antibodies. In Alicante province it’s 2.7
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Figures from Spain show only 5% overall with antibodies. In Alicante province it’s 2.7
put on your socks and grab your.....we are in this for the long haul.....
0.5% in Tuscany....infection rates similar to somewhere like Kent, or Oxfordshire....I think they have about 9k confirmed in the region....
Oh dear. The new Conservative Party really is not just full of arseholes, it is full of arseholes who are so thick that they think that in this day and age it is ok to put your name to something so politically toxic.
The furlough scheme is basically to keep companies, many of whom are currently legally prohibited from operating ticking over till and a bit past the point at which they can all legally operate. At that point basic demand determines whether they can carry on going as the furlough scheme disappears.
This is the interesting bit. I generally consider myself to be on the right of politics. I'm in favour of a smallish state and very much pro-business. However, I only believe in those things because I think that that is what's best for people. I am not pro-business for their own sake (although I think successful businesses and the people running them should be celebrated).
Take Virgin Atlantic. I haven't come across a single person who thinks we should be bailing them out (via their employees or otherwise). Nobody particularly likes Branson, so that's not a problem. It gets harder with smaller businesses such as pubs. I feel very sorry for owners of such businesses. Ultimately, however, the government's responsibility is to the people of this country. They should be thinking about how to ease the pain on people rather than trying to preserve all businesses for a return to normal that may never come.
Whilst I can understand the temptation to look at this from the perspective of the business owner who has had his or her life's work and savings wiped out through no fault of their own I don't think that the government should. What the government needs to do is to work out what parts of our economy (a) have a long term future and (b) need short term help to survive.
Virgin Atlantic seem to me to fail (a) because it is difficult to imagine sufficient demand for their services for the next 5 years plus. This seems to me a better way of determining whether there should be state support than Branson being a tosser. To a certain extent it needs the government to pick winners, not in terms of individual companies but in terms of sectors. What do we actually need? This should drive the government not only to supporting existing businesses but to help new ones which are going to bring key elements of manufacturing capacity (for example) back onshore where this is in the national interest.
I agree completely - my point about Branson was more that I think the government will find it easier to throw him under a bus than a pub owner.
The really tricky sector: banks.
Banks are a nightmare and we will pay the price of not locking up several hundred bankers after 2008 for fraud and malfeasance. There was far too much business as usual after that calamity and I see people being extremely reluctant to tolerate that again but they remain an essential service.
+1
It remains something of a mystery to me how "working people" in the aftermath of the banking crash became more animated about cutting immigration and leaving the EU than about stamping on the City.
False consciousness, I believe, is the term.
The banks were hard core remain. I even had Goldman Sachs support for Remain mentioned as a reason for Leave.
Think "Smash The System!"
That, as it happens, was on my list of 2 good reasons for voting Leave. A smaller City and lower house prices.
But my other list - good reasons for voting Remain - was much longer.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
Was wondering if different international serology tests are using different thresholds. In other words the intent of the study might be a factor - are they trying to estimate presumed immunity, or estimate the number who've had it?
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Figures from Spain show only 5% overall with antibodies. In Alicante province it’s 2.7
There is something we don't understand about this virus -
It seems highly infectious, yet some people in persistent close proximity fail to catch it. Or at least get symptoms.
The immune/exposed number is all over the place - Sweden claiming 26% in Stockholm, and now the numbers above from Tuscany.
The fatality estimates, from reputable scientists, are all over the place.
I wonder if an issue is the capability of the antibody tests being used?
Comments
I don't want you to to get over excited, but...
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1260826630873907200?s=20
I suspect that this falls under the TooManyToBlame portfolio - particularly since too many ciivil servants would get caught in the net...
Punters must try to keep what they want to happen separate from their assessment of probabilities and the best ones are good at doing this. But here's the thing. When they fail, they tend to understate the chances of something they want to happen happening. Or conversely overstate the likelihood of an outcome which they do not want to occur. This is the mind actively preparing for distress and disappointment or discounting and downplaying the prospect of joy. It is human nature and applies to most people. The best punters know it and seek to avoid it by not betting on things they passionately care about. For example, they will not bet on the football team they support.
So now take me and Trump. My view (oft heard on here) is he will not only lose but lose big. Let's apply confirmation bias properly to this. I also want him to lose big. I want this more than I have ever wanted any political outcome ever, and that includes UK general elections and EU referendums. Therefore if anything I will likely be overstating his chances of winning.
Thus when hearing from me that I think Trump will lose you should be saying to yourself "OK, and confirmation bias too. So stripping that out, kinabalu must be REALLY convinced that Trump will lose big. Gosh, food for thought."
Have a think.
Guido is Guido and hasn't gone anywhere.
I said yesterday that I don't think Starmer's time as DPP will make much difference, but I would say that it's very much fair game for the Tories to talk about it.
SKS is dangerous. His PMQs need work - too verbose and not following up enough at the moment, but that's only the first two of >100 between now and election time.
@SouthamObserver is a good example of this as he always starts from assuming his least favourite political outcome is nailed-on as a way of managing his expectations. Co-incidentally, over recent years, he's also been right. That doesn't mean his analysis is bad (he's an intelligent guy and makes great points) but we know that.
Good examples of top punters/analysts on here who can divorce the two (in my view) are Quincel, Pulpstar, Robert Smithson, Alasdair, Alastair Meeks, and AndyJS.
OTOH, IIUC it's been gradually trending Dem for a while, so the demographics are on Biden's side.
Otherwise Pennsylvania and Michigan are the key tipping point states, with Pennsylvania perhaps playing the role Florida did in 2000 or Ohio in 2004
https://twitter.com/mickbk/status/1260869820964319232
North Carolina is the opposite, the rural areas there tend to report later than the population (Democrat) centres.
He seems to be targeting winning London.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/P4KE0
Trump only got 45.54% in Utah in 2016, 21.54% went to an independent (Deep State)
It just brought most of the Brexit Party vote back into the Tory tent
It remains something of a mystery to me how "working people" in the aftermath of the banking crash became more animated about cutting immigration and leaving the EU than about stamping on the City.
False consciousness, I believe, is the term.
Generation rent likely to be quicker to move on this than those with mortgages already.
There should be a win-win balance somewhere in terms of reduced office costs, being able to hire a wider pool of talent, lower salary requirements/lower cost of living...
Edit: see here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_07_1016
I think it will be variation thereon.
I vaguely remember several here (including me) questioning Starmer's role at the time, but I can't recall anything conclusive coming out.
Given the Conservatives have been in government for the last decade, this kind of smear, as opposed to a proper investigation of the role of the CPS, is pretty low stuff.
There were massive failings across government, and it was only sustained media investigation (the Times in particular was admirable in this respect) which produced action.
The problem is, that looking from the outside - "How can anyone vote for Trump?"
- Yet he is still competitive.
- Biden seems to be the worst possible pick for the Democrats.
- Trump is down in various states, but not by a lethal margin.
The question is whether he will managed to break through his own "Red Wall". Biden does not seem to be able to do this.
Think "Smash The System!"
All part of ones daily exercise.
This is a constant of various scandals going back decades.
On a related, comic note. I mentioned an aquaintance who is being penalised for doing her job - getting part of the Nightingale hospital thing to work. She tells me that certain managers are furious at the following -
They have heard that ministers will not accept responsibility for actions where those actions were contrary to explicit instructions from said minister
Yes, that's right. They think that if the minister says do A, they do B, the minister should take responsibility for B.
Course start date: Between 1 August and 31 December
Apply by: 31 May after your course started,
i.e. 31 May 2021 for a course starting in September this year.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528
It means talking about something other than current govt failings.
Tories being underhand isn't really news in any case.
Some of the accounts of I-knew-but-I-didn't-know are a very interesting study in the phscology of dealing with facts that are contrary to ones world view and vital interests.
But, yes, in general, it is not advisable to bet big money if you can't keep emotion in the passenger seat.
I think confirmation bias is best understood outside of betting and in relation to values and beliefs about the world. There, you see it all the time and it is always in the same direction. People look for evidence that supports their views. Everyone does it, we're not machines, and it's only a problem if it gets to be a problem, if you know what I mean.
Or, maybe, they could try and procure some ventilators?
However by mid-2018 I had fully come to understand that as a practicing Christian, finance professional and with a European spouse the party didn't want me and I didn't particularly want it and so that was that. I haven't voted for them and since and as long as the current crop of Brextremists are running the show I never will.
The only people to come out of it creditably were a few individuals who fought against the system, and a fairly small number of very persistent journalists. And some very brave victims who waived anonymity.
Also, may not.
Unfortunately I think their central assumption is flawed. The health authorities have said they are concentrating countermeasures in areas with the highest infection rates, so there are other reasons to suppose that R will be lower in those areas than post-infection immunity alone.
Of course in Canada the Reform Party effectively took over the Tories there too to create the Conservative Party of Canada in the early 2000s.
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Of course, now that they have finally approved a serology test, it ought not to be awfully long before we have some numbers which are considerably better than educated guesses.
They are going to process 400,000 in total.....
https://twitter.com/SebDance/status/1260689012970455040
And rather than say "he hates Trump so he's bound to think he'll lose" it should more be the opposite - "he hates Trump so he's probably if anything underplaying the chance of his losing."
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
0.5% of that is 18.5k
Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
put on your socks and grab your.....we are in this for the long haul.....
0.5% in Tuscany....infection rates similar to somewhere like Kent, or Oxfordshire....I think they have about 9k confirmed in the region....
But my other list - good reasons for voting Remain - was much longer.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Was wondering if different international serology tests are using different thresholds. In other words the intent of the study might be a factor - are they trying to estimate presumed immunity, or estimate the number who've had it?
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
It seems highly infectious, yet some people in persistent close proximity fail to catch it. Or at least get symptoms.
The immune/exposed number is all over the place - Sweden claiming 26% in Stockholm, and now the numbers above from Tuscany.
The fatality estimates, from reputable scientists, are all over the place.
I wonder if an issue is the capability of the antibody tests being used?