There was a polling error in the French presidential election of 4.3%. So a Trump win is possible - it could of course be in favour of Biden (As it was for the poll leader Macron).
That'd give Biden + 18.1% and perhaps South Carolina and Alaska.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
What fresh covid data hell is this "hidden" Pillar 2 shennanigans
It is extraordinary that this Pillar 2 (non-hospital) data has not been shared with local public health authorities. That can only be gross incompetence surely? No other reason. It will have cost lives unnecessarily.
It also makes a nonsense of just relying on Pillar 1 data to track the progress of the disease. I'm going to stop my daily updates. No point.
I'm struggling to think of why you wouldn't tell local authorities. And it seems they've been asking for months.
Gross incompetence is possible but unlikely. They've clearly had this data and it's not that much work to send an email.
Maybe a bit more work to collate all of the various labs' results, go through them and allocate them to postcode areas, then local authorities, and then send all the notifications.
But important early warning data and hopefully this will now get some priority.
So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.
a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.
b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.
c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.
d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.
e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
So the scientific establishments's belief that quarantine and testing weren't important was mistaken.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Personally I find them a useful reality check. Trump is such an asshole it's easy to kid yourself he can't win.
I think its the opposite effect for me. My brain sees people being deliberately selective with data and assumes they are therefore wrong. Whereas in fact they could still be right.
I was blinded to the possibility that polls could be systematically wrong in 2016 by the complete garbage that people who thought Trump could win were posting.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What fresh covid data hell is this "hidden" Pillar 2 shennanigans
It is extraordinary that this Pillar 2 (non-hospital) data has not been shared with local public health authorities. That can only be gross incompetence surely? No other reason. It will have cost lives unnecessarily.
It also makes a nonsense of just relying on Pillar 1 data to track the progress of the disease. I'm going to stop my daily updates. No point.
I'm struggling to think of why you wouldn't tell local authorities. And it seems they've been asking for months.
Gross incompetence is possible but unlikely. They've clearly had this data and it's not that much work to send an email.
Maybe a bit more work to collate all of the various labs' results, go through them and allocate them to postcode areas, then local authorities, and then send all the notifications.
But important early warning data and hopefully this will now get some priority.
So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.
a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.
b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.
c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.
d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.
e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
e) was simply because it suited the government, desperate to meet its ill advised promise of so many tests, to count a swab stuck up someone's nose and another swab stuck down the same person's throat as two tests.
On a) it was interesting that they said genetic analysis of the early virus tests suggests that far more infections came back to the UK from Spain than from Italy, despite Italy being the earlier epicentre.
One thing I'd worry about with the polling is that a lot of these polls are asking a "right track / wrong track" question first, before they do the Trump/Biden one.
I think "wrong track" is the obvious answer to the first question, since everybody's dying of the plague and the economy is on fire, but once you've said the country's going down the toilet it must feel quite weird to say you're going to vote for its current leader.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Personally I find them a useful reality check. Trump is such an asshole it's easy to kid yourself he can't win.
I think its the opposite effect for me. My brain sees people being deliberately selective with data and assumes they are therefore wrong. Whereas in fact they could still be right.
I was blinded to the possibility that polls could be systematically wrong in 2016 by the complete garbage that people who thought Trump could win were posting.
Fairy nuff, but Ed's posts aren't garbage - selective yes, overegged possibly but not garbage. All the points he makes are correct, so it's just a question then of balancing them out against all the other stuff out there.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
I'd like him to win for the lolz and because I just want to watch the world burn.
So the summary of the Pillar 1 / Pillar 2 disparity is this. Headline data (Pillar 1) shows a continuing Drop in cases. Huzzah. Patriotic duty to get pissed and start a fight etc. Whereas Pillar 2 shows that you would have to be suicidal to allow people to do that.
Who are these fucking idiots running the country????
The daily total released here https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk is all Pillars - including antibody testing. This number has been decreasing, steadily.
The Pillar 1 data shows the outbreak in Leicester.
So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.
a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.
b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.
c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.
d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.
e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
So the scientific establishments's belief that quarantine and testing weren't important was mistaken.
As many PBers said at the time.
I suspect that was a consequence of d). They got to the point where they just didn't have the capacity to test enough. It would have been brave, but honest to stand up at the daily briefing and say 'we have abandoned the test and trace because we can't cope and have to do something different now'.
So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.
a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.
b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.
c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.
d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.
e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
There are two corollaries to (a) which are beyond the government's control, and relate to domestic spread.
Firstly - it may only be a slight bias, but London as the domestic seed is in the south of the country and spread north is marginally easier than spread south (see how SW escapes, and see Spanish pattern outward from Madrid)
Second - there are relatively few major barriers to town to town spread between London and NW England. In Italy the Apennines were a formidable barrier, in the UK where the heat map striped from London westwards, then up through the W Mids into NW England, domestic spread has few blocks, especially bolstered by multiple seeds.
I think where lower initial seeding could have had a bigger effect was by lowering the impact through Cumbria, NE England, and through the Central Belt, which by rights should have been lower infection areas.
I've read recently about some bizarre EU concept called the Blue Banana, basically a "built up" area running from Liverpool in an arc to Belgium, NW France, the.Ruhr, Switzerland and the Po Valley. Bizarre it may be, but the number of COVID hotspots it covers is quite telling.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Personally I find them a useful reality check. Trump is such an asshole it's easy to kid yourself he can't win.
I think its the opposite effect for me. My brain sees people being deliberately selective with data and assumes they are therefore wrong. Whereas in fact they could still be right.
I was blinded to the possibility that polls could be systematically wrong in 2016 by the complete garbage that people who thought Trump could win were posting.
Fairy nuff, but Ed's posts aren't garbage - selective yes, overegged possibly but not garbage. All the points he makes are correct, so it's just a question then of balancing them out against all the other stuff out there.
I'd agree with that. On this topic, I think someone should write a thread header titled "Why Trump might win". My thinking on this is very shaped by my scarring loss in 2016. I'm trying to figure out at what price I should cash out my Biden position.
Following interest shown in presenting local data -
England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.
Colour starts at 5 cases per day.
Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.
You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.
Does this not suggest, given the lack of a blip in the Pillar 1 cases, that it is a younger demographic catching the virus?
Or is it just that Pillar 2 testing has ramped up massively?
I think it suggests that people tested in hospital are properly ill, and therefore a couple of weeks further down the line than people being tested at home.
As any of the millions doing Prof Spectre's symptom tracking App will know, as soon as you tell the App that today you have a headache, the email offering you a Covid test isn't long behind.
I ignored my two test offers, as neither the mild symptoms I reported nor my behaviour during lockdown suggests having Covid is at all likely. But there will be many people who will have clicked to order a home test, and doubtless some of these found instances of hidden infection in places like Leicester.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
Russianguy1983?
Stuart Truth?
And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
Wasn't Stuart Truth a Romney supporter in 2012 ?
Yes, and he disappeared without trace the moment the exitpoll was announced. Guys like that will generally come back though but under a different name.
I may be doing her a misjustice, but I do have my doubts about the authenticity of Lady G.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
Russianguy1983?
Stuart Truth?
And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
Wasn't Stuart Truth a Romney supporter in 2012 ?
Yes, and he disappeared without trace the moment the exitpoll was announced. Guys like that will generally come back though but under a different name.
I may be doing her a misjustice, but I do have my doubts about the authenticity of Lady G.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
One more indication that people get wiser and more tolerant as they get older.
It is perfectly possible that in 200 years time meat eating will be seen as at best a cultural curiosity of interest to historical anthropologists, and/or that mass abortion will be seen as a grave and irrational evil. I hope they won't all rush to judge our world of 2020, doing its incompetent best, by their different future standards.
Wiser, maybe. More tolerant? Nah. Quite the opposite in my experience.
So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.
a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.
b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.
c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.
d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.
e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
There are two corollaries to (a) which are beyond the government's control, and relate to domestic spread.
Firstly - it may only be a slight bias, but London as the domestic seed is in the south of the country and spread north is marginally easier than spread south (see how SW escapes, and see Spanish pattern outward from Madrid)
Second - there are relatively few major barriers to town to town spread between London and NW England. In Italy the Apennines were a formidable barrier, in the UK where the heat map striped from London westwards, then up through the W Mids into NW England, domestic spread has few blocks, especially bolstered by multiple seeds.
I think where lower initial seeding could have had a bigger effect was by lowering the impact through Cumbria, NE England, and through the Central Belt, which by rights should have been lower infection areas.
I've read recently about some bizarre EU concept called the Blue Banana, basically a "built up" area running from Liverpool in an arc to Belgium, NW France, the.Ruhr, Switzerland and the Po Valley. Bizarre it may be, but the number of COVID hotspots it covers is quite telling.
Second -
Those are where the EU's principal urban and industrial areas are situated. No surprise that the virus spreads faster in cities.
Following interest shown in presenting local data -
England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.
Colour starts at 5 cases per day.
Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.
You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.
Does this not suggest, given the lack of a blip in the Pillar 1 cases, that it is a younger demographic catching the virus?
Or is it just that Pillar 2 testing has ramped up massively?
It suggests to me that many people were not prepared to go somewhere to get a pillar 1 test: Hospital, ?GP. But were prepared to have a pillar two test.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Its a horrible thing to balance - I get that. But you have to balance off people dying vs the government continuing to support people. Despite all the bullshit being put about (our "patriotic duty" to drink and shop FFS) this thing is not remotely done and shows every sign of making a comeback with a vengeance.
A pint (and a dirty burger) outdoors in the fresh air with spacing? Sounds like bliss. But there's only a few that can manage that, and we're already seeing the selfish stupidity of the public. Pour alcohol down their throats and imagine the "fun" thats to be had.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Two ways that don't involve being locked down forever:
1) Suppress the virus almost completely, make lots of testing capacity, then resume lockdown locally if and where it flares up again (The China strategy)
2) Make ongoing, less disruptive changes short of a lockdown. (The Japan strategy)
There's also
3) Eliminate the virus within your borders, then go back to normal but with strict border controls (The New Zealand strategy) but that was probably never practical for Britain, and if it was it's too late now.
I guess Britain is sort-of aiming for (2), but the response is too incoherent and half-arsed to be sure.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Well government could, for example, procure & provide a billion or so facemasks, and strongly encourage or mandate their wearing.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Personally I find them a useful reality check. Trump is such an asshole it's easy to kid yourself he can't win.
I think its the opposite effect for me. My brain sees people being deliberately selective with data and assumes they are therefore wrong. Whereas in fact they could still be right.
I was blinded to the possibility that polls could be systematically wrong in 2016 by the complete garbage that people who thought Trump could win were posting.
Fairy nuff, but Ed's posts aren't garbage - selective yes, overegged possibly but not garbage. All the points he makes are correct, so it's just a question then of balancing them out against all the other stuff out there.
I'd agree with that. On this topic, I think someone should write a thread header titled "Why Trump might win". My thinking on this is very shaped by my scarring loss in 2016. I'm trying to figure out at what price I should cash out my Biden position.
Ed's effectively done it, but I am sure he would do a 'special' if asked.
The biggest difficulty I am having in the US Presidential markets is avoiding over-exposure. Given the age and physical condition of both candidates I trying to keep a balanced book, but it's hard to make much that way.
Scars? You're not a punter if you don't have a few. I was ok on Trump 2016. It was Cammo's surprise GE win that did me in. Still have nightmares about it. The worst of it is that it was my own fault. I didn't follow my own rules. Cost about £4k, easily my worst ever outcome.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
Yes, there may well be a narrowing on 'squeeze' but it would be absurd to allocate all the undecideds to Trump which is what you need to do to put him ahead.
Yes, that's definitely right. I think the path for Trump is more like:
- Start at 50 vs 40, gap of 10 - Flip 2.5% to 47.5 vs 42.5 gets the gap down to 5 - 3% advantage in Dunno/Other and it's 2 - Squeak the electoral college again
If you add in Biden piling up votes in the West and North East, and a closer Electoral College victory, Trump could squeak home with a larger national vote deficit.
A little improvement for Trump on the regional Marist numbers in the South and he squeaks home with a 6% national deficit.
Following interest shown in presenting local data -
England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.
Colour starts at 5 cases per day.
Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.
You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.
Does this not suggest, given the lack of a blip in the Pillar 1 cases, that it is a younger demographic catching the virus?
Or is it just that Pillar 2 testing has ramped up massively?
I think it suggests that people tested in hospital are properly ill, and therefore a couple of weeks further down the line than people being tested at home.
As any of the millions doing Prof Spectre's symptom tracking App will know, as soon as you tell the App that today you have a headache, the email offering you a Covid test isn't long behind.
I ignored my two test offers, as neither the mild symptoms I reported nor my behaviour during lockdown suggests having Covid is at all likely. But there will be many people who will have clicked to order a home test, and doubtless some of these found instances of hidden infection in places like Leicester.
You should accept them - a negative result is also valuable data. The point of the research effort is not just to track current infections (and there is, I think, adequate testing capacity now for this not to be a burden on the system).
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Its a horrible thing to balance - I get that. But you have to balance off people dying vs the government continuing to support people. Despite all the bullshit being put about (our "patriotic duty" to drink and shop FFS) this thing is not remotely done and shows every sign of making a comeback with a vengeance.
A pint (and a dirty burger) outdoors in the fresh air with spacing? Sounds like bliss. But there's only a few that can manage that, and we're already seeing the selfish stupidity of the public. Pour alcohol down their throats and imagine the "fun" thats to be had.
And the other point made by More or Less was the very striking age gradient of risk. Anyone under 35 has more chance of dying this year in a road accident than from the virus, and most of the few such deaths have been people with medical conditions. A healthy person in their 20s or early 30s has next to no risk of even serious illness if they catch the virus.
The problem of course - and surely this is the US story - is that they take the virus back to their families.
Keep the original - £10 evens, I say Trump loses, you say he wins.
Plus now another £10 evens, I say Trump does not reach 200 in the EC.
Beauty of this -
Balances things since the 1st bet you should (now) get 2/1 odds against whereas the 2nd one EYE should get 2/1 odds against.
And gives a nice and more interesting profile - it means that if I'm totally right (Trump loses easily) it's £20 to Mermaids, if I'm half right half wrong (Trump loses but it IS close), we're flat, and if I'm totally wrong (Trump wins) it's £20 to Dangerous Dogs.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
I'd like him to win for the lolz and because I just want to watch the world burn.
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
One more indication that people get wiser and more tolerant as they get older.
It is perfectly possible that in 200 years time meat eating will be seen as at best a cultural curiosity of interest to historical anthropologists, and/or that mass abortion will be seen as a grave and irrational evil. I hope they won't all rush to judge our world of 2020, doing its incompetent best, by their different future standards.
I speak as someone who enjoys meat and has no plans to stop eating it, but I suspect in the future we will look back on that as cruel. Meat eaters may well fall into the same category that fox hunters do today and I don't approve of fox hunting.
Does that make me a hypocrite or just a person of my time in history.
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
One more indication that people get wiser and more tolerant as they get older.
It is perfectly possible that in 200 years time meat eating will be seen as at best a cultural curiosity of interest to historical anthropologists, and/or that mass abortion will be seen as a grave and irrational evil. I hope they won't all rush to judge our world of 2020, doing its incompetent best, by their different future standards.
Wiser, maybe. More tolerant? Nah. Quite the opposite in my experience.
There seems to be confusion between years passing and people getting older. As a person gets older they usually get less tolerant, considerably so. But over the centuries there is a good case that society has become more tolerant. Eg in the 17th century having adultery was punishable by death.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
Russianguy1983?
Stuart Truth?
And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
Wasn't Stuart Truth a Romney supporter in 2012 ?
Yes, and he disappeared without trace the moment the exitpoll was announced. Guys like that will generally come back though but under a different name.
I may be doing her a misjustice, but I do have my doubts about the authenticity of Lady G.
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
One more indication that people get wiser and more tolerant as they get older.
It is perfectly possible that in 200 years time meat eating will be seen as at best a cultural curiosity of interest to historical anthropologists, and/or that mass abortion will be seen as a grave and irrational evil. I hope they won't all rush to judge our world of 2020, doing its incompetent best, by their different future standards.
Wiser, maybe. More tolerant? Nah. Quite the opposite in my experience.
There seems to be confusion between years passing and people getting older. As a person gets older they usually get less tolerant, considerably so. But over the centuries there is a good case that society has become more tolerant. Eg in the 17th century having adultery was punishable by death.
There's no guarantee society will continue to get tolerant in future.
In fact, there's some evidence we might already be starting to go backward on that.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Well government could, for example, procure & provide a billion or so facemasks, and strongly encourage or mandate their wearing.
In the areas where mask usage is most effective i.e. public transport, their usage is already mandatory.
Well worth a read if you're interested in the subject.
Thanks. It is striking to me that the ones I've heard about the most in the press seem to be using the most novel approaches. Personally that's a bit worrying since I'd have thought there was a higher chance of failure.
It's also surprising there's a whole technique he mentions that only has Chinese companies trying it.
So the summary of the Pillar 1 / Pillar 2 disparity is this. Headline data (Pillar 1) shows a continuing Drop in cases. Huzzah. Patriotic duty to get pissed and start a fight etc. Whereas Pillar 2 shows that you would have to be suicidal to allow people to do that.
Who are these fucking idiots running the country????
The daily total released here https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk is all Pillars - including antibody testing. This number has been decreasing, steadily.
The Pillar 1 data shows the outbreak in Leicester.
That website says "The UK total is not the sum of the 4 National totals as the pillar 2 cases are not included in the National totals for all parts of the UK - they are currently included for Wales, but not England, Northern Ireland or Scotland." The cases are allocated to the date reported not the date tested unlike the detailed Pillar 1 data. Not much use.
So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.
a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.
b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.
c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.
d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.
e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
e) was simply because it suited the government, desperate to meet its ill advised promise of so many tests, to count a swab stuck up someone's nose and another swab stuck down the same person's throat as two tests...
On the current testing regime, you use the same swab to do both.
Following interest shown in presenting local data -
England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.
Colour starts at 5 cases per day.
Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.
You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.
Does this not suggest, given the lack of a blip in the Pillar 1 cases, that it is a younger demographic catching the virus?
Or is it just that Pillar 2 testing has ramped up massively?
I think it suggests that people tested in hospital are properly ill, and therefore a couple of weeks further down the line than people being tested at home.
As any of the millions doing Prof Spectre's symptom tracking App will know, as soon as you tell the App that today you have a headache, the email offering you a Covid test isn't long behind.
I ignored my two test offers, as neither the mild symptoms I reported nor my behaviour during lockdown suggests having Covid is at all likely. But there will be many people who will have clicked to order a home test, and doubtless some of these found instances of hidden infection in places like Leicester.
You should accept them - a negative result is also valuable data. The point of the research effort is not just to track current infections (and there is, I think, adequate testing capacity now for this not to be a burden on the system).
The first offer would have meant travelling to North Island, which seemed undue hassle and risk in the circumstances. I could I suppose have clicked for a home test the second time, but you are right that it would have felt like wasting somebody's time given I just had a headache, for which other possible explanations come to mind.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
Spain running with 30 active outbreaks ranging from 3 to over 100 infections in each outbreak two regions back to phase 2 lockdown with localized lockdowns in the other cases. Whilst people in the UK have a tendency to dismiss Spanish figures it’s interesting that a single infection is worthy of local news attention and national reaction. Still problems arising in care homes but the biggest outbreak centered around a Red Cross medical center.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Its a horrible thing to balance - I get that. But you have to balance off people dying vs the government continuing to support people. Despite all the bullshit being put about (our "patriotic duty" to drink and shop FFS) this thing is not remotely done and shows every sign of making a comeback with a vengeance.
A pint (and a dirty burger) outdoors in the fresh air with spacing? Sounds like bliss. But there's only a few that can manage that, and we're already seeing the selfish stupidity of the public. Pour alcohol down their throats and imagine the "fun" thats to be had.
And the other point made by More or Less was the very striking age gradient of risk. Anyone under 35 has more chance of dying this year in a road accident than from the virus, and most of the few such deaths have been people with medical conditions. A healthy person in their 20s or early 30s has next to no risk of even serious illness if they catch the virus.
The problem of course - and surely this is the US story - is that they take the virus back to their families.
Re America I have seen two estimates now of the anticipated future infection rate being 100,000 and 160,000 per day. At this rate, whether intended or not, they are going for herd immunity.
One wonders what the death rate might be a month or two down the line?
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
Yes, there may well be a narrowing on 'squeeze' but it would be absurd to allocate all the undecideds to Trump which is what you need to do to put him ahead.
Yes, that's definitely right. I think the path for Trump is more like:
- Start at 50 vs 40, gap of 10 - Flip 2.5% to 47.5 vs 42.5 gets the gap down to 5 - 3% advantage in Dunno/Other and it's 2 - Squeak the electoral college again
If you add in Biden piling up votes in the West and North East, and a closer Electoral College victory, Trump could squeak home with a larger national vote deficit.
A little improvement for Trump on the regional Marist numbers in the South and he squeaks home with a 6% national deficit.
Yup. I don't think I'm really convinced either that Trump's advantage in the rust belt has grown - Biden *should* be strong in the rust belt, especially compared to Hillary - or that Trump could get through with that big a skew, since the votes have to pop up somewhere; Biden doesn't need any gains in the rust belt if he gets Florida and Georgia, or Arizona and Texas. But the probability isn't zero.
So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.
a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.
b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.
c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.
d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.
e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
There are two corollaries to (a) which are beyond the government's control, and relate to domestic spread.
Firstly - it may only be a slight bias, but London as the domestic seed is in the south of the country and spread north is marginally easier than spread south (see how SW escapes, and see Spanish pattern outward from Madrid)
Second - there are relatively few major barriers to town to town spread between London and NW England. In Italy the Apennines were a formidable barrier, in the UK where the heat map striped from London westwards, then up through the W Mids into NW England, domestic spread has few blocks, especially bolstered by multiple seeds.
I think where lower initial seeding could have had a bigger effect was by lowering the impact through Cumbria, NE England, and through the Central Belt, which by rights should have been lower infection areas.
I've read recently about some bizarre EU concept called the Blue Banana, basically a "built up" area running from Liverpool in an arc to Belgium, NW France, the.Ruhr, Switzerland and the Po Valley. Bizarre it may be, but the number of COVID hotspots it covers is quite telling.
Second -
One more thought.
The current UK hotspots according to pillar 1+2 are all wavefront locations from domestic spread - Leicester a logical hop.point from West Midlands conurbations into the wider East Midlands, Bedford on the northern edge of high London wave (in fact 3-4 weeks ago Northants and Peterboro were high so it's not beyond the realm it's the same wavefront), the Pennine lobster shaped hotspot contains spread away from the centres of S & W York's and GM to end of the line Pennine locations (the last hurrah of the northern Italy outbreaks were in the small Alpine provinces).
Unfortunately, the reports don't show district councils, as I'm pretty sure there is another wavefront going eastwards across Kent.
On pillar 1-2 hiding things. For Kirklees as a whole pillar 1 weekly numbers have been sub 20 per week, where as >30 per 100k implies over 130 positive tests overall in a week.
Some of this will be the meat plant mobile testing, we've no clue how much (and given the location of the plant, I'm pretty sure it'll be a contributor to Bradford's figures as well).
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
One more indication that people get wiser and more tolerant as they get older.
It is perfectly possible that in 200 years time meat eating will be seen as at best a cultural curiosity of interest to historical anthropologists, and/or that mass abortion will be seen as a grave and irrational evil. I hope they won't all rush to judge our world of 2020, doing its incompetent best, by their different future standards.
Wiser, maybe. More tolerant? Nah. Quite the opposite in my experience.
There seems to be confusion between years passing and people getting older. As a person gets older they usually get less tolerant, considerably so. But over the centuries there is a good case that society has become more tolerant. Eg in the 17th century having adultery was punishable by death.
Agreed - there's definitely been a long-term progress towards increased tolerance, albeit with plenty of set-backs along the way.
I suspect our medieval ancestors would look at our approach to human rights and animal cruelty with amazement. The world is an infinitely better place for those improvements.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Then point out your case using the evidence you find. You say I am being "selective" but how? I list my points and point to events. I have been open in saying I think the polls may be wrong.
If you are going to make an accusation, back up your points. No one is stopping you.
Keep the original - £10 evens, I say Trump loses, you say he wins.
Plus now another £10 evens, I say Trump does not reach 200 in the EC.
Beauty of this -
Balances things since the 1st bet you should (now) get 2/1 odds against whereas the 2nd one EYE should get 2/1 odds against.
And gives a nice and more interesting profile - it means that if I'm totally right (Trump loses easily) it's £20 to Mermaids, if I'm half right half wrong (Trump loses but it IS close), we're flat, and if I'm totally wrong (Trump wins) it's £20 to Dangerous Dogs.
What do you think?
(2 x £25 = £50 would also be fine)
Deal Kinablu. Let's go for the £50.
One point of edit - they're not Dangerous Dogs, it's All Dogs Matter. It is a misconception pitbulls are inherently dangerous dogs and it is that misconception that has led to the Dangerous Dogs Act.
What's the difference between Pillar 1 and 2 tests?
Pillar 1 are in hospitals, Public Health England labs, and tests of NHS and care workers. Pillar 2 are those sent out to members of the public reporting mild symptoms.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Well government could, for example, procure & provide a billion or so facemasks, and strongly encourage or mandate their wearing.
In the areas where mask usage is most effective i.e. public transport, their usage is already mandatory.
In places where it's sensible, though, maybe 15-25% of people bother. And how many actually follow the mandatory requirement ?
When we're spending multiple tens of billions a month to prevent economic collapse, the relative lack of effort on the single easiest intervention puzzles me.
Following interest shown in presenting local data -
England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.
Colour starts at 5 cases per day.
Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.
You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.
Does this not suggest, given the lack of a blip in the Pillar 1 cases, that it is a younger demographic catching the virus?
Or is it just that Pillar 2 testing has ramped up massively?
So I think there are several take homes from the Leicester Pillar 1 and 2 situation. (1) Pillar 2 data needs to be made available, if not to everyone, at least to the relevant local authorities. (2) While the scale of the issue in Leicester was not being shown in just the Pillar 1 data, there was clearly something going on from the P1 data. (3) As others have suggested - are the P2 cases to some extent picked up through more testing (contacts etc) and possibly asymptomatic? (4) It is also somewhat good news as the proportion of the positives in England and Wales coming from just Leicester is quite high, and thus the new cases everywhere else are a bit lower.
How can cases in Wales be coming from Leicester? Why lump England and Wales data together when it is already separated out?
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
Thankfully for me (re betting value) that it will likely be close is not a minority view. It's still the consensus. Trump below 200 in the EC available at 9/4 per the very recent Herdson header.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Personally I find them a useful reality check. Trump is such an asshole it's easy to kid yourself he can't win.
I think its the opposite effect for me. My brain sees people being deliberately selective with data and assumes they are therefore wrong. Whereas in fact they could still be right.
I was blinded to the possibility that polls could be systematically wrong in 2016 by the complete garbage that people who thought Trump could win were posting.
Fairy nuff, but Ed's posts aren't garbage - selective yes, overegged possibly but not garbage. All the points he makes are correct, so it's just a question then of balancing them out against all the other stuff out there.
I'd agree with that. On this topic, I think someone should write a thread header titled "Why Trump might win". My thinking on this is very shaped by my scarring loss in 2016. I'm trying to figure out at what price I should cash out my Biden position.
Ed's effectively done it, but I am sure he would do a 'special' if asked.
The biggest difficulty I am having in the US Presidential markets is avoiding over-exposure. Given the age and physical condition of both candidates I trying to keep a balanced book, but it's hard to make much that way.
Scars? You're not a punter if you don't have a few. I was ok on Trump 2016. It was Cammo's surprise GE win that did me in. Still have nightmares about it. The worst of it is that it was my own fault. I didn't follow my own rules. Cost about £4k, easily my worst ever outcome.
Cheers Peter, I did actually put a header up here a few weeks back on why I thought Trump would win. I will try and dig it out. Also, happy to update.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
Then you are not paying attention @Big_G_NorthWales - there are a good handful.
Well worth a read if you're interested in the subject.
Thanks. It is striking to me that the ones I've heard about the most in the press seem to be using the most novel approaches. Personally that's a bit worrying since I'd have thought there was a higher chance of failure.
It's also surprising there's a whole technique he mentions that only has Chinese companies trying it.
I think, perhaps, that is because this is the most difficult route to ramp up quickly for mass usage, and western countries are taking a technology driven approach.
But it is also where a lot of lesser developed countries have capacity, so it's of high value as an alternate approach - and although it's one potentially more likely to see side effects, we also know that it's an approach that works.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Well government could, for example, procure & provide a billion or so facemasks, and strongly encourage or mandate their wearing.
In the areas where mask usage is most effective i.e. public transport, their usage is already mandatory.
In places where it's sensible, though, maybe 15-25% of people bother. And how many actually follow the mandatory requirement ?
When we're spending multiple tens of billions a month to prevent economic collapse, the relative lack of effort on the single easiest intervention puzzles me.
On the Metro here mask usage seems to be almost universal. They’ve been policing it quite heavily.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
I did agree that the posts are authoritative and that is why I consider them dangerous from a betting point of view.
The comment I took exception to was the assertion that Trump had a "good chance" of flipping Minnesota because Biden is opposed to the XL Pipeline.
Clinton won Mn by 1.5% and the latest poll has Biden 16% ahead two before that gave a 5% and 12% lead. I don't know enough about Minnesota to call it but the obvious question is why are the polls not picking up a move to Trump because of the pipeline?
I would hope that most would do their own research but I think that stating that Trump has a good chance of winning Mn needed qualification.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
Keep the original - £10 evens, I say Trump loses, you say he wins.
Plus now another £10 evens, I say Trump does not reach 200 in the EC.
Beauty of this -
Balances things since the 1st bet you should (now) get 2/1 odds against whereas the 2nd one EYE should get 2/1 odds against.
And gives a nice and more interesting profile - it means that if I'm totally right (Trump loses easily) it's £20 to Mermaids, if I'm half right half wrong (Trump loses but it IS close), we're flat, and if I'm totally wrong (Trump wins) it's £20 to Dangerous Dogs.
What do you think?
(2 x £25 = £50 would also be fine)
Deal Kinablu. Let's go for the £50.
One point of edit - they're not Dangerous Dogs, it's All Dogs Matter. It is a misconception pitbulls are inherently dangerous dogs and it is that misconception that has led to the Dangerous Dogs Act.
K! - and correction noted, it's a "Mermaids" vs "All Dogs Matter" match up.
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
Although when people talk about "the standards of the time", they often seem to mean the standards of a small group of people of the time. Like say, the opinions of slave-owners of the time, rather than the opinions of, I don't know, slaves of the time.
It's hard to know what non elites felt about their times. But it may be a leap to assume because people might not like being slaves themselves that they were definitely anti slavery. People are generally anti being massacred but might well support massacring others.
Keep the original - £10 evens, I say Trump loses, you say he wins.
Plus now another £10 evens, I say Trump does not reach 200 in the EC.
Beauty of this -
Balances things since the 1st bet you should (now) get 2/1 odds against whereas the 2nd one EYE should get 2/1 odds against.
And gives a nice and more interesting profile - it means that if I'm totally right (Trump loses easily) it's £20 to Mermaids, if I'm half right half wrong (Trump loses but it IS close), we're flat, and if I'm totally wrong (Trump wins) it's £20 to Dangerous Dogs.
What do you think?
(2 x £25 = £50 would also be fine)
Deal Kinablu. Let's go for the £50.
One point of edit - they're not Dangerous Dogs, it's All Dogs Matter. It is a misconception pitbulls are inherently dangerous dogs and it is that misconception that has led to the Dangerous Dogs Act.
K! - and correction noted, it's a "Mermaids" vs "All Dogs Matter" match up.
We really must be crazy as a country to be unlocking on the scale we are doing. The Pillar 2 data clearly shows that the Rona is still here and angry. America unlocked and CDC say its out of control there. There's even spikes in countries who had substantial lock downs...
What alternative is there? We can't stay "locked down" forever.
Well government could, for example, procure & provide a billion or so facemasks, and strongly encourage or mandate their wearing.
In the areas where mask usage is most effective i.e. public transport, their usage is already mandatory.
In places where it's sensible, though, maybe 15-25% of people bother. And how many actually follow the mandatory requirement ?
When we're spending multiple tens of billions a month to prevent economic collapse, the relative lack of effort on the single easiest intervention puzzles me.
On the Metro here mask usage seems to be almost universal. They’ve been policing it quite heavily.
I took my car for service and MOT last Friday. This involved coming home on the bus and then returning to the garage later. Going there were 3 people travelling with 2 ( including me) wearing masks; going back me and one other with masks. Very small sub-sample but confirms the pattern.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.
I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
He is utterly undeserving of a moment longer in the White House.
Yet, the Democrats have given Trump a chance of four more years - by putting up as their candidate a guy with dementia. Biden is one debate brain-fade away from being whooped.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
But using the fact the GOP won a congressional seat they held uninterrupted from 1992-2018 in a by-election where the Dem resigned in a scandal as evidence of Trump having huge appeal is selective to the max.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
I did agree that the posts are authoritative and that is why I consider them dangerous from a betting point of view.
The comment I took exception to was the assertion that Trump had a "good chance" of flipping Minnesota because Biden is opposed to the XL Pipeline.
Clinton won Mn by 1.5% and the latest poll has Biden 16% ahead two before that gave a 5% and 12% lead. I don't know enough about Minnesota to call it but the obvious question is why are the polls not picking up a move to Trump because of the pipeline?
I would hope that most would do their own research but I think that stating that Trump has a good chance of winning Mn needed qualification.
I'll answer your point. First, as I have been consistent saying on here, state polling is notoriously bad. There has been one poll on Minnesota (maybe there has been more and I have missed them). Second, more to the point, Minnesota has been trending GOP for the past few elections. It is a state that is heavily weighted towards resources which is one of the reasons the Democrats have been losing share in recent elections. So, given the trends, it is not hard to see it shifting.
If Covid will be a feature of life for a while, should HS2 not just be discussed, but actually stopped as a danger to public health? It would surely accelerate the spread of Covid and any future infectious diseases a great deal.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
I did agree that the posts are authoritative and that is why I consider them dangerous from a betting point of view.
The comment I took exception to was the assertion that Trump had a "good chance" of flipping Minnesota because Biden is opposed to the XL Pipeline.
Clinton won Mn by 1.5% and the latest poll has Biden 16% ahead two before that gave a 5% and 12% lead. I don't know enough about Minnesota to call it but the obvious question is why are the polls not picking up a move to Trump because of the pipeline?
I would hope that most would do their own research but I think that stating that Trump has a good chance of winning Mn needed qualification.
I'll answer your point. First, as I have been consistent saying on here, state polling is notoriously bad. There has been one poll on Minnesota (maybe there has been more and I have missed them). Second, more to the point, Minnesota has been trending GOP for the past few elections. It is a state that is heavily weighted towards resources which is one of the reasons the Democrats have been losing share in recent elections. So, given the trends, it is not hard to see it shifting.
I know nothing, like Jon Snow, about Minnesota trends, but these are the polls in RCP:
Looks OK for Biden on the face of it, though I agree that state polling (and US polling in general) is erratic, no doubt because of small samples and/or dubious quota sampling.
Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.
So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
Yes, there may well be a narrowing on 'squeeze' but it would be absurd to allocate all the undecideds to Trump which is what you need to do to put him ahead.
Yes, that's definitely right. I think the path for Trump is more like:
- Start at 50 vs 40, gap of 10 - Flip 2.5% to 47.5 vs 42.5 gets the gap down to 5 - 3% advantage in Dunno/Other and it's 2 - Squeak the electoral college again
If you add in Biden piling up votes in the West and North East, and a closer Electoral College victory, Trump could squeak home with a larger national vote deficit.
A little improvement for Trump on the regional Marist numbers in the South and he squeaks home with a 6% national deficit.
Current state polling suggests Trump has a similar electoral college advantage to last time (slightly smaller if anything). So around 2% lead for Biden in the popular vote and Trump still has a good chance of winning. 6% lead for Biden and Trump has almost zero chance.
I'm not sure if there is much to be gained by looking at the polling in big regions rather than individual states.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Personally I find them a useful reality check. Trump is such an asshole it's easy to kid yourself he can't win.
I think its the opposite effect for me. My brain sees people being deliberately selective with data and assumes they are therefore wrong. Whereas in fact they could still be right.
I was blinded to the possibility that polls could be systematically wrong in 2016 by the complete garbage that people who thought Trump could win were posting.
That should be the red flag though.
People who believe in absolute garbage still get a vote.
If Covid will be a feature of life for a while, should HS2 not just be discussed, but actually stopped as a danger to public health? It would surely accelerate the spread of Covid and any future infectious diseases a great deal.
QTWAIN.
HS2 won't be operational until many years after COVID19 is eliminated. Of all the reasons to stop it, this is grasping at straws.
Besides if capacity is the issue due to social distancing it would be an argument in favour of having another line.
In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
Stop moaning, making the case for how Trump could win isn't a nice job but someone's got to do it.
Agreed; I think his posts have value, whether or not I agree with them. And he's not averse to considering criticism.
I did agree that the posts are authoritative and that is why I consider them dangerous from a betting point of view.
The comment I took exception to was the assertion that Trump had a "good chance" of flipping Minnesota because Biden is opposed to the XL Pipeline.
Clinton won Mn by 1.5% and the latest poll has Biden 16% ahead two before that gave a 5% and 12% lead. I don't know enough about Minnesota to call it but the obvious question is why are the polls not picking up a move to Trump because of the pipeline?
I would hope that most would do their own research but I think that stating that Trump has a good chance of winning Mn needed qualification.
I'll answer your point. First, as I have been consistent saying on here, state polling is notoriously bad. There has been one poll on Minnesota (maybe there has been more and I have missed them). Second, more to the point, Minnesota has been trending GOP for the past few elections. It is a state that is heavily weighted towards resources which is one of the reasons the Democrats have been losing share in recent elections. So, given the trends, it is not hard to see it shifting.
I know nothing, like Jon Snow, about Minnesota trends, but these are the polls in RCP:
Looks OK for Biden on the face of it, though I agree that state polling (and US polling in general) is erratic, no doubt because of small samples and/or dubious quota sampling.
On Minnesota trends: Minnesota moved less towards the Republican candidate between 2012 and 2016 than, for example, neighbouring Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won. Wisconsin currently has 8.2% Biden average lead (538). I don't see any reason to think Trump would lose Wisconsin but gain Minnesota. Of course he could hold onto Wisconsin and also gain Minnesota, which would be relevant in scenarios where Biden gains Florida and one other state, for example.
For sure, Biden shouldn't get complacent in Minnesota, but it seems to me far more likely that Trump wins by holding onto enough of the states he won in 2016. For example, just losing Wisconsin and Michigan, but holding on in Pennsylvania and Florida (and Arizona and N.C. and Georgia...)
Comments
That'd give Biden + 18.1% and perhaps South Carolina and Alaska.
But important early warning data and hopefully this will now get some priority.
As many PBers said at the time.
I was blinded to the possibility that polls could be systematically wrong in 2016 by the complete garbage that people who thought Trump could win were posting.
The list that was being laughed at was one from the Express, where they simply assumed that any increase, even 1 from 0 was a spike.
On a) it was interesting that they said genetic analysis of the early virus tests suggests that far more infections came back to the UK from Spain than from Italy, despite Italy being the earlier epicentre.
I think "wrong track" is the obvious answer to the first question, since everybody's dying of the plague and the economy is on fire, but once you've said the country's going down the toilet it must feel quite weird to say you're going to vote for its current leader.
The Pillar 1 data shows the outbreak in Leicester.
There is a graph of the all UK, all Pillars numbers here - https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/cases
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiDkTOKI7Ro&pbjreload=101
Firstly - it may only be a slight bias, but London as the domestic seed is in the south of the country and spread north is marginally easier than spread south (see how SW escapes, and see Spanish pattern outward from Madrid)
Second - there are relatively few major barriers to town to town spread between London and NW England. In Italy the Apennines were a formidable barrier, in the UK where the heat map striped from London westwards, then up through the W Mids into NW England, domestic spread has few blocks, especially bolstered by multiple seeds.
I think where lower initial seeding could have had a bigger effect was by lowering the impact through Cumbria, NE England, and through the Central Belt, which by rights should have been lower infection areas.
I've read recently about some bizarre EU concept called the Blue Banana, basically a "built up" area running from Liverpool in an arc to Belgium, NW France, the.Ruhr, Switzerland and the Po Valley. Bizarre it may be, but the number of COVID hotspots it covers is quite telling.
Second -
On this topic, I think someone should write a thread header titled "Why Trump might win".
My thinking on this is very shaped by my scarring loss in 2016. I'm trying to figure out at what price I should cash out my Biden position.
As any of the millions doing Prof Spectre's symptom tracking App will know, as soon as you tell the App that today you have a headache, the email offering you a Covid test isn't long behind.
I ignored my two test offers, as neither the mild symptoms I reported nor my behaviour during lockdown suggests having Covid is at all likely. But there will be many people who will have clicked to order a home test, and doubtless some of these found instances of hidden infection in places like Leicester.
I may be doing her a misjustice, but I do have my doubts about the authenticity of Lady G.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/06/29/coronavirus-vaccine-update-june-29
Well worth a read if you're interested in the subject.
Why that is so is just speculation.
And he's not averse to considering criticism.
A pint (and a dirty burger) outdoors in the fresh air with spacing? Sounds like bliss. But there's only a few that can manage that, and we're already seeing the selfish stupidity of the public. Pour alcohol down their throats and imagine the "fun" thats to be had.
1) Suppress the virus almost completely, make lots of testing capacity, then resume lockdown locally if and where it flares up again (The China strategy)
2) Make ongoing, less disruptive changes short of a lockdown. (The Japan strategy)
There's also
3) Eliminate the virus within your borders, then go back to normal but with strict border controls (The New Zealand strategy) but that was probably never practical for Britain, and if it was it's too late now.
I guess Britain is sort-of aiming for (2), but the response is too incoherent and half-arsed to be sure.
(plus 2 days)
The biggest difficulty I am having in the US Presidential markets is avoiding over-exposure. Given the age and physical condition of both candidates I trying to keep a balanced book, but it's hard to make much that way.
Scars? You're not a punter if you don't have a few. I was ok on Trump 2016. It was Cammo's surprise GE win that did me in. Still have nightmares about it. The worst of it is that it was my own fault. I didn't follow my own rules. Cost about £4k, easily my worst ever outcome.
A little improvement for Trump on the regional Marist numbers in the South and he squeaks home with a 6% national deficit.
The point of the research effort is not just to track current infections (and there is, I think, adequate testing capacity now for this not to be a burden on the system).
The problem of course - and surely this is the US story - is that they take the virus back to their families.
Our bet. Suggested revision.
Keep the original - £10 evens, I say Trump loses, you say he wins.
Plus now another £10 evens, I say Trump does not reach 200 in the EC.
Beauty of this -
Balances things since the 1st bet you should (now) get 2/1 odds against whereas the 2nd one EYE should get 2/1 odds against.
And gives a nice and more interesting profile - it means that if I'm totally right (Trump loses easily) it's £20 to Mermaids, if I'm half right half wrong (Trump loses but it IS close), we're flat, and if I'm totally wrong (Trump wins) it's £20 to Dangerous Dogs.
What do you think?
(2 x £25 = £50 would also be fine)
Does that make me a hypocrite or just a person of my time in history.
In fact, there's some evidence we might already be starting to go backward on that.
It's also surprising there's a whole technique he mentions that only has Chinese companies trying it.
The cases are allocated to the date reported not the date tested unlike the detailed Pillar 1 data. Not much use.
One wonders what the death rate might be a month or two down the line?
new thread
The current UK hotspots according to pillar 1+2 are all wavefront locations from domestic spread - Leicester a logical hop.point from West Midlands conurbations into the wider East Midlands, Bedford on the northern edge of high London wave (in fact 3-4 weeks ago Northants and Peterboro were high so it's not beyond the realm it's the same wavefront), the Pennine lobster shaped hotspot contains spread away from the centres of S & W York's and GM to end of the line Pennine locations (the last hurrah of the northern Italy outbreaks were in the small Alpine provinces).
Unfortunately, the reports don't show district councils, as I'm pretty sure there is another wavefront going eastwards across Kent.
On pillar 1-2 hiding things. For Kirklees as a whole pillar 1 weekly numbers have been sub 20 per week, where as >30 per 100k implies over 130 positive tests overall in a week.
Some of this will be the meat plant mobile testing, we've no clue how much (and given the location of the plant, I'm pretty sure it'll be a contributor to Bradford's figures as well).
I suspect our medieval ancestors would look at our approach to human rights and animal cruelty with amazement. The world is an infinitely better place for those improvements.
If you are going to make an accusation, back up your points. No one is stopping you.
One point of edit - they're not Dangerous Dogs, it's All Dogs Matter. It is a misconception pitbulls are inherently dangerous dogs and it is that misconception that has led to the Dangerous Dogs Act.
And how many actually follow the mandatory requirement ?
When we're spending multiple tens of billions a month to prevent economic collapse, the relative lack of effort on the single easiest intervention puzzles me.
But it is also where a lot of lesser developed countries have capacity, so it's of high value as an alternate approach - and although it's one potentially more likely to see side effects, we also know that it's an approach that works.
The comment I took exception to was the assertion that Trump had a "good chance" of flipping Minnesota because Biden is opposed to the XL Pipeline.
Clinton won Mn by 1.5% and the latest poll has Biden 16% ahead two before that gave a 5% and 12% lead. I don't know enough about Minnesota to call it but the obvious question is why are the polls not picking up a move to Trump because of the pipeline?
I would hope that most would do their own research but I think that stating that Trump has a good chance of winning Mn needed qualification.
PS, since I confidently predicted a Clinton win in 2016 I recognise that I could well be wrong here (sadly).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/30/some-leicester-factories-stayed-open-and-forced-staff-to-come-in?fbclid=IwAR2K0eTWos8Y3VH85CQF-Q1fYmbXlHPI6VoEd8atpEHvLUYU87BoFgbXPxk
Yet, the Democrats have given Trump a chance of four more years - by putting up as their candidate a guy with dementia. Biden is one debate brain-fade away from being whooped.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_biden-6966.html
Looks OK for Biden on the face of it, though I agree that state polling (and US polling in general) is erratic, no doubt because of small samples and/or dubious quota sampling.
I'm not sure if there is much to be gained by looking at the polling in big regions rather than individual states.
People who believe in absolute garbage still get a vote.
HS2 won't be operational until many years after COVID19 is eliminated. Of all the reasons to stop it, this is grasping at straws.
Besides if capacity is the issue due to social distancing it would be an argument in favour of having another line.
Sad to see what illness has done to her though I'd guess she doesn't want anyone's pity.
Minnesota moved less towards the Republican candidate between 2012 and 2016 than, for example, neighbouring Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won. Wisconsin currently has 8.2% Biden average lead (538). I don't see any reason to think Trump would lose Wisconsin but gain Minnesota. Of course he could hold onto Wisconsin and also gain Minnesota, which would be relevant in scenarios where Biden gains Florida and one other state, for example.
For sure, Biden shouldn't get complacent in Minnesota, but it seems to me far more likely that Trump wins by holding onto enough of the states he won in 2016. For example, just losing Wisconsin and Michigan, but holding on in Pennsylvania and Florida (and Arizona and N.C. and Georgia...)