Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor who got under Trump’s skin, mov

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor who got under Trump’s skin, moves up sharply in the Biden VP pick betting

In the early days of the Biden VP pick saga Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of the highly marginal state of Michigan, was one of the early favourites. Her state has been one of the worst hit by the pandemic and there was a highly public clash between her and the President after she was said not to have shown enough gratitude to Trump for his assistance.

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • First ... yet again!
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited August 2020
    I was allowed to stake the princely sum of £1.25 on Ms Whitmer just now at 16/1 with William Hill to win £20. Incredible to think they were once a great bookmaking firm ... one of the best in the land. Nowadays I don't know why I bother to maintain an account with them as it's become increasingly possible to have a decent bet.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,210

    a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    Everyone is going to be soooo embarrassed when it turns out that Jimmy Carter is going to be Biden's VP.
  • a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    I hope you are right because I've been posting about plunges on Whitmer for the past couple of days without striking a bet. Keisha Lance Bottoms has also been on a rollercoaster, from 70s to 10 yesterday and now back out again.
  • a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    Mike's an old shrewdie and no mistake, especially when it comes to spotting betting value and if he says backing Whitmer to be Biden's VP nominee is worth "a punt" (which in Putneyspeak I take to be not exceeding the cost of a pint of Young's Bitter in this parish, aka a fiver), then that's good enough for me!
  • a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    I hope you are right because I've been posting about plunges on Whitmer for the past couple of days without striking a bet. Keisha Lance Bottoms has also been on a rollercoaster, from 70s to 10 yesterday and now back out again.
    All this talk of "plunges" and "Lance Bottoms" is making me feel quite faint!
  • I was allowed to stake the princely sum of £1.25 on Ms Whitmer just now at 16/1 with William Hill to win £20. Incredible to think they were once a great bookmaking firm ... one of the best in the land. Nowadays I don't know why I bother to maintain an account with them as it's become increasingly possible to have a decent bet.

    At first I thought you'd slipped the decimal point so I tried it and was also limited to £1.25, an offer I declined, partly because I do not think she will get the gig but also partly because it is insulting since I'd only asked for £10 in the first place.
  • As an aside, anyone who has been trading Kamala Harris over the past few days as she cycles between odds-on and odds-against will be on good terms with themselves.

    Kamala Harris: 2.08
    Susan Rice: 3.5
    Gretchen Whitmer: 8.8
    Elizabeth Warren: 20
    Val Demings: 20
    Karen Bass: 21
    Tammy Duckworth: 21
    Michelle Obama: 36
    Michelle Lujan Grisham: 65
    Keisha Lance Bottoms: 75
    Stacey Abrams: 85
    Hillary Clinton: 110
  • Incidentally, regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, it is Mike Pence who is responsible (as chair of the White House Coronavirus Task Force) and, of course, it is Mike Pence whom Gretchen Whitmer would face in debates (assuming they go ahead).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Coronavirus_Task_Force
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,210

    As an aside, anyone who has been trading Kamala Harris over the past few days as she cycles between odds-on and odds-against will be on good terms with themselves.

    Kamala Harris: 2.08
    Susan Rice: 3.5
    Gretchen Whitmer: 8.8
    Elizabeth Warren: 20
    Val Demings: 20
    Karen Bass: 21
    Tammy Duckworth: 21
    Michelle Obama: 36
    Michelle Lujan Grisham: 65
    Keisha Lance Bottoms: 75
    Stacey Abrams: 85
    Hillary Clinton: 110

    I am green on everyone except Clinton, Obama and Oprah Winfrey.

    My best result is Harris, simply because I haven't sold her as aggressively as some of the other names.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,210

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
  • rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, anyone who has been trading Kamala Harris over the past few days as she cycles between odds-on and odds-against will be on good terms with themselves.

    Kamala Harris: 2.08
    Susan Rice: 3.5
    Gretchen Whitmer: 8.8
    Elizabeth Warren: 20
    Val Demings: 20
    Karen Bass: 21
    Tammy Duckworth: 21
    Michelle Obama: 36
    Michelle Lujan Grisham: 65
    Keisha Lance Bottoms: 75
    Stacey Abrams: 85
    Hillary Clinton: 110

    I am green on everyone except Clinton, Obama and Oprah Winfrey.

    My best result is Harris, simply because I haven't sold her as aggressively as some of the other names.
    I'm also mainly green. Tammy Duckworth would be my best result, though the buzz has left her and I expect it will be one of the two at the top of the market. A professional would rearrange his book in this light but life's too short. I do wonder if Karen Bass in particular has been oversold.

    It is hard to be objective because it is not really clear what one of them brings that another does not, and if they are all more or less equivalent (although obviously not the same, but equivalent in the sense of having known vulnerabilities that are outweighed by their good points) then it comes down to personal chemistry and how Biden felt on the morning of their meeting.

    Whoever is nominated, I expect they'd do a good job, and even if adding to the gaiety of the nation by misspelling potatoe, I doubt she will repel many votes.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    I doubt there'll be one vaccine; I suspect we might end up with three or four used around the world, although of course anything developed with UK Government money will be 'world-beating' although it might well be the least effective of the bunch.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,210

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    There will be different vaccines, with different pluses and minuses: bigger immune response & more side effects, or the reverse
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    There will be different vaccines, with different pluses and minuses: bigger immune response & more side effects, or the reverse
    The MMR vaccine made my lips turn blue briefly about 2 hours after administration, remember that from school
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    There will be different vaccines, with different pluses and minuses: bigger immune response & more side effects, or the reverse
    The MMR vaccine made my lips turn blue briefly about 2 hours after administration, remember that from school
    MMR at school?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    I doubt there'll be one vaccine; I suspect we might end up with three or four used around the world, although of course anything developed with UK Government money will be 'world-beating' although it might well be the least effective of the bunch.
    Unlike the herd (to coin a phrase), I'm guessing then that you won't be rushing to invest in AstraZeneca PLC any time soon!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    I doubt there'll be one vaccine; I suspect we might end up with three or four used around the world, although of course anything developed with UK Government money will be 'world-beating' although it might well be the least effective of the bunch.
    Unlike the herd (to coin a phrase), I'm guessing then that you won't be rushing to invest in AstraZeneca PLC any time soon!
    No, because I don't have cash to do that. Although it's a thought. Been saving quite a lot during lockdown due to no journeys anywhere.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    rcs1000 said:

    a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    Everyone is going to be soooo embarrassed when it turns out that Jimmy Carter is going to be Biden's VP.
    Not least Biden...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    edited August 2020

    a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    I hope you are right because I've been posting about plunges on Whitmer for the past couple of days without striking a bet. Keisha Lance Bottoms has also been on a rollercoaster, from 70s to 10 yesterday and now back out again.
    In retrospect, laying whomever was the current second favourite over the last couple of months would have been very profitable.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    I doubt there'll be one vaccine; I suspect we might end up with three or four used around the world, although of course anything developed with UK Government money will be 'world-beating' although it might well be the least effective of the bunch.
    Unlike the herd (to coin a phrase), I'm guessing then that you won't be rushing to invest in AstraZeneca PLC any time soon!
    No, because I don't have cash to do that. Although it's a thought. Been saving quite a lot during lockdown due to no journeys anywhere.
    It's certainly true that, rather like the price of oranges these days, at 8440p per AZN share you don't get many to the pound!
  • eekeek Posts: 28,400
    edited August 2020
    Moving on to the actual election for anyone voting it's worth paying attention to the rapid destruction of the US postal service

    https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1291902939024457730

    A lot of primary voting forms didn't arrive in time for people to vote and that was before the latest sets of cuts
  • Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    Everyone is going to be soooo embarrassed when it turns out that Jimmy Carter is going to be Biden's VP.
    Not least Biden...
    Normally I take great heed of what rcs1000 has to say, but on this occasion he's just nuts!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,805
    edited August 2020
    Good morning, kids.

    F1: not sure if I'll bet on qualifying. My early thoughts are that Bottas might win (or top qualifying) and that Ricciardo may do well.

    The tyres being softer is good. Makes things edgier.

    Edited extra bit: Bottas' qualifying odds have lengthened slightly from 3.5 yesterday to 3.7 now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    eek said:

    Moving on to the actual election for anyone voting it's worth paying attention to the rapid destruction of the US postal service

    https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1291902939024457730

    A lot of primary voting forms didn't arrive in time for people to vote and that was before the latest sets of cuts

    Given that the largest users of postal votes are apparently Republicans, this seems a dumb strategy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,805
    F1: Verstappen's 8 (with boost) to top third practice. A fifth the odds top 3. He was 3rd in last weekend's third practice and qualifying.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    Everyone is going to be soooo embarrassed when it turns out that Jimmy Carter is going to be Biden's VP.
    Not least Biden...
    Normally I take great heed of what rcs1000 has to say, but on this occasion he's just nuts!
    I thought it quite funny.
    A misguided effort to make Biden look young ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,603
    rcs1000 said:

    a) The last rumour was wrong
    b) This rumour is wrong
    c) Both rumours are wrong

    I'd say the value is with (c).

    Everyone is going to be soooo embarrassed when it turns out that Jimmy Carter is going to be Biden's VP.
    On the basis that if you want to look slim, hang around with fat people, if you want to look sprightly and young....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,603
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    There will be different vaccines, with different pluses and minuses: bigger immune response & more side effects, or the reverse
    The MMR vaccine made my lips turn blue briefly about 2 hours after administration, remember that from school
    ...or it may have been that blue gob-stopper......
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    Interesting thread discussing the interaction between population immunity and social distancing and other control measures:

    https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1291860659118804992

    https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1291860668342079490

    https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1291860674029555714
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,481
    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Moving on to the actual election for anyone voting it's worth paying attention to the rapid destruction of the US postal service

    https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1291902939024457730

    A lot of primary voting forms didn't arrive in time for people to vote and that was before the latest sets of cuts

    Given that the largest users of postal votes are apparently Republicans, this seems a dumb strategy.
    Is it because Trump wants people to be stopped from casting their votes till he's rolled in with a vaccine?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    There will be different vaccines, with different pluses and minuses: bigger immune response & more side effects, or the reverse
    The MMR vaccine made my lips turn blue briefly about 2 hours after administration, remember that from school
    MMR at school?
    Yep, early 90s I think
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Nice to be able to sign in here.

    Now, to the trivia: the lady in the pix is slathered with make-up and appears to have had her teeth bleached.

    But, if she's a tough cookie then more elbow power to her.
  • Scenes when Biden picks Obama lol
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    It may involve several factors. For instance, if the virus itself is changing then that could be evolutionary---it doesn't "do" to kill ones host.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    Moving on to the actual election for anyone voting it's worth paying attention to the rapid destruction of the US postal service

    https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1291902939024457730

    A lot of primary voting forms didn't arrive in time for people to vote and that was before the latest sets of cuts

    Given that the largest users of postal votes are apparently Republicans, this seems a dumb strategy.
    Is it because Trump wants people to be stopped from casting their votes till he's rolled in with a vaccine?
    No, it is because Trump sees postal voting as an advantage to the Dems, particularly where Republican law makers have closed polling stations in order to suppress voting, particularly amongst ethnic minority voters.

    Come the election, even if no reliable vaccine has been found, Trump can hold up a bottle of Domestos and claim it to be the elixir of life, and again certain voters will believe him.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    It's possible that this may be correct. Apparently the pressure on the hospitals in Spain is also much reduced, despite the reportedly more substantial upswing in cases there - and they have had more widespread mask rules and for longer than we have, of course.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Virtually no Wikipedia editing action for Gretchen Whitmer.

    Loads for Kamala Harris and Susan Rice.

    A little bit for Tammy Duckworth.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    It is; there is a huge amount of sequencing of the virus being done, and absolutely no evidence of significant mutation that reduces virulence. The most common mutation seems to be slightly more infectious, but not significantly different in its effects.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    He has talked an awful lot of mince so far , I will therefore await someone sensible giving opinions before I get concerned.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Virtually no Wikipedia editing action for Gretchen Whitmer.

    Loads for Kamala Harris and Susan Rice.

    A little bit for Tammy Duckworth.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ended up picking Tammy Duckworth. But what do I know?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222
    Toms said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    It may involve several factors. For instance, if the virus itself is changing then that could be evolutionary---it doesn't "do" to kill ones host.
    I don’t see how - it doesn’t kill a large enough proportion of those infected for any such evolutionary pressure.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    Virtually no Wikipedia editing action for Gretchen Whitmer.

    Loads for Kamala Harris and Susan Rice.

    A little bit for Tammy Duckworth.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ended up picking Tammy Duckworth. But what do I know?
    I was convinced for months, Harris or Rice. Now I am not so sure. I suspect Joe has plotted that same path, and like me he is no longer sure of who the VP pick will be.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719
    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Yes, that would fit with what seems to be happening.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719
    Nigelb said:

    Toms said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    It may involve several factors. For instance, if the virus itself is changing then that could be evolutionary---it doesn't "do" to kill ones host.
    I don’t see how - it doesn’t kill a large enough proportion of those infected for any such evolutionary pressure.
    In addition there is quite a long prodromal period, where peak viral shedding occurs so host death won't exert much evolutionary pressure on the virus.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    Virtually no Wikipedia editing action for Gretchen Whitmer.

    Loads for Kamala Harris and Susan Rice.

    A little bit for Tammy Duckworth.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ended up picking Tammy Duckworth. But what do I know?
    I was convinced for months, Harris or Rice. Now I am not so sure. I suspect Joe has plotted that same path, and like me he is no longer sure of who the VP pick will be.
    I'd be shocked if Biden knew who the VP pick was after it has been announced.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,859
    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    malcolmg said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    He has talked an awful lot of mince so far , I will therefore await someone sensible giving opinions before I get concerned.
    Given you don’t think anyone *is* sensible, except possibly Kenneth Clarke and Alex Salmond, that implies that you are never going to get concerned.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Incoming from A Certain Poster about how the higher proportion of infections on the Shackleton shows masks do cause cases...
  • A beautiful morning in Glasgow! The Clyde is mirror flat, seagulls buzzing around, cyclists, joggers. I love this city far more than Edinburgh.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,400

    Virtually no Wikipedia editing action for Gretchen Whitmer.

    Loads for Kamala Harris and Susan Rice.

    A little bit for Tammy Duckworth.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if he ended up picking Tammy Duckworth. But what do I know?
    If Biden does go for Tammy Trump will make a joke about disability in seconds
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,859
    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Yes, that would fit with what seems to be happening.
    I must admit, from a position of almost total ignorance, I was incredulous that the quantum of virus to which someone was initially exposed could make a material difference given the rate at which it would replicate within an infected host. But this seems to be a thing after all.

    Presumably super spreaders who shed large quantities of the virus not only infect more people but infect them with more of the virus in one go?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Yes, that would fit with what seems to be happening.
    Viral load was a "thing" at the start of the pandemic, then it seems to fade but is now back again as a factor.

    It makes sense to me as it would help explain why so many medics - see Italy (as @Tyson was always pointing out) died from Covid. Big dosage from close-up patients.

    Masks are having a heyday aren`t they. SeanT was right? I don`t like them from a civil liberties standpoint, and so dislike compulsion, but accept it as a temporary measure only in these awful times.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    If viral load is a crucial predictor in the seriousness of infection, then this implies that the infected body can fight a small dose before the virus has a chance to replicate.

    This has always been the doubtful bit in my mind about the viral load hypothesis. I assumed that the virus would be much faster than the host`s defenses.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,859
    Stocky said:

    If viral load is a crucial predictor in the seriousness of infection, then this implies that the infected body can fight a small dose before the virus has a chance to replicate.

    This has always been the doubtful bit in my mind about the viral load hypothesis. I assumed that the virus would be much faster than the host`s defenses.

    Exactly. But it may be that we were wrong about this and it would indeed have significant implications for how we conduct ourselves.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    If viral load is a crucial predictor in the seriousness of infection, then this implies that the infected body can fight a small dose before the virus has a chance to replicate.

    This has always been the doubtful bit in my mind about the viral load hypothesis. I assumed that the virus would be much faster than the host`s defenses.

    Exactly. But it may be that we were wrong about this and it would indeed have significant implications for how we conduct ourselves.
    It would also help explain the large number of care home deaths.

    The residents would - I`m guessing - have received a low viral load, possibly from surface transmission. Younger, healthy people would shrug this off but the residents of the homes, with age and other health factors against them, succumed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Yes, that would fit with what seems to be happening.
    I must admit, from a position of almost total ignorance, I was incredulous that the quantum of virus to which someone was initially exposed could make a material difference given the rate at which it would replicate within an infected host. But this seems to be a thing after all.

    Presumably super spreaders who shed large quantities of the virus not only infect more people but infect them with more of the virus in one go?
    It may be that a day or so makes a difference, particularly to the non specific immune and inflammatory mechanisms. If they get a headstart then maybe a good immune response is there before it spreads from nose to chest. This may be via host interferon decreasing further replication.

    The virus can replicate quickly, but as a great philosopher once remarked about football, everything is made more complicated by the presence of the opposing team. The host starts the fight very quickly with generic mechanisms.

    This is a good summary of immunology for beginners:

    https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1290989075982360577?s=09
  • Stocky said:

    If viral load is a crucial predictor in the seriousness of infection, then this implies that the infected body can fight a small dose before the virus has a chance to replicate.

    This has always been the doubtful bit in my mind about the viral load hypothesis. I assumed that the virus would be much faster than the host`s defenses.

    Not a biologist (obviously) but perhaps the longish time between infection and symptoms shows that it is not replicating that fast? Although the fact that patients are at their most infectious just before they become symptomatic might argue against that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,131
    edited August 2020
    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Nigelb said:

    Toms said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    It may involve several factors. For instance, if the virus itself is changing then that could be evolutionary---it doesn't "do" to kill ones host.
    I don’t see how - it doesn’t kill a large enough proportion of those infected for any such evolutionary pressure.
    Well, maybe a better word than "kill" might have been "to render them hors de combat".
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Yes, that would fit with what seems to be happening.
    I must admit, from a position of almost total ignorance, I was incredulous that the quantum of virus to which someone was initially exposed could make a material difference given the rate at which it would replicate within an infected host. But this seems to be a thing after all.

    Presumably super spreaders who shed large quantities of the virus not only infect more people but infect them with more of the virus in one go?
    It may be that a day or so makes a difference, particularly to the non specific immune and inflammatory mechanisms. If they get a headstart then maybe a good immune response is there before it spreads from nose to chest. This may be via host interferon decreasing further replication.

    The virus can replicate quickly, but as a great philosopher once remarked about football, everything is made more complicated by the presence of the opposing team. The host starts the fight very quickly with generic mechanisms.

    This is a good summary of immunology for beginners:

    https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1290989075982360577?s=09
    We should keep up with the zinc and selenium supplements, Foxy?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited August 2020
    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    This may of course have been the goal of whoever leaked that it was now down to Harris vs Rice - makes it harder to pick Whitmer or whatever other non-black candidates he may be considering.

    There's a suggestion that he'll also announce cabinet picks, which isn't traditionally done in the US (although it's a good idea, the Shadow Cabinet is a good feature of British politics):
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/biden-2020-announcing-cabinet-members-election-risky-move-151871

    So right before the VP announcement, leak/announce Rice as Secretary of State, Harris as AG, etc etc.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,859
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Yes, that would fit with what seems to be happening.
    I must admit, from a position of almost total ignorance, I was incredulous that the quantum of virus to which someone was initially exposed could make a material difference given the rate at which it would replicate within an infected host. But this seems to be a thing after all.

    Presumably super spreaders who shed large quantities of the virus not only infect more people but infect them with more of the virus in one go?
    It may be that a day or so makes a difference, particularly to the non specific immune and inflammatory mechanisms. If they get a headstart then maybe a good immune response is there before it spreads from nose to chest. This may be via host interferon decreasing further replication.

    The virus can replicate quickly, but as a great philosopher once remarked about football, everything is made more complicated by the presence of the opposing team. The host starts the fight very quickly with generic mechanisms.

    This is a good summary of immunology for beginners:

    https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1290989075982360577?s=09
    Loved the start:
    "There’s a joke about immunology, which Jessica Metcalf of Princeton recently told me. An immunologist and a cardiologist are kidnapped. The kidnappers threaten to shoot one of them, but promise to spare whoever has made the greater contribution to humanity. The cardiologist says, “Well, I’ve identified drugs that have saved the lives of millions of people.” Impressed, the kidnappers turn to the immunologist. “What have you done?” they ask. The immunologist says, “The thing is, the immune system is very complicated …” And the cardiologist says, “Just shoot me now.”"
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    There will be different vaccines, with different pluses and minuses: bigger immune response & more side effects, or the reverse
    The MMR vaccine made my lips turn blue briefly about 2 hours after administration, remember that from school
    MMR at school?
    Yep, early 90s I think
    I suspect you are mis-remembering which vaccination was involved. MMR is administered twice, the second being a booster at around 3 years 4 months.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,728
    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    She was my tip from way back :)
  • Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    If this does end up being the case, Boris Johnson is going to look pretty stupid with his current approach
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    Whitmer is governor of Michigan, a key swing state, while Harris is a California Senator and Rice from DC, both safe Democratic areas which may be why Biden is considering her
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    edited August 2020
    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
  • http://news.sky.com/story/uk-demands-france-crack-down-on-migrant-crossings-in-bid-to-make-route-unviable-12044977

    We should try making an organisation of close geographical states with common interests.

    We could call it the European Union
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,859
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
  • https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1292013473489133568

    Sleaze has returned, why does this always happen to Tory Governments with majorities?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1292013473489133568

    Sleaze has returned, why does this always happen to Tory Governments with majorities?

    I'm sure that if Labour had the ability to win elections, it would happen to them too! :wink:
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    He has talked an awful lot of mince so far , I will therefore await someone sensible giving opinions before I get concerned.
    Given you don’t think anyone *is* sensible, except possibly Kenneth Clarke and Alex Salmond, that implies that you are never going to get concerned.
    Meow
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
    Without LBJ carrying Texas for JFK Nixon may have contested the Illinois vote and Mayor Daley's shenanigans, Biden is an experienced VP unlike say Obama when he picked Biden or George W when he picked Cheney he does not need an experienced VP so much as one who can win him a swing state in what I still think will be a tight election.

    Whitmer and Demings are both capable anyway
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719
    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is an increasing amount of evidence that masks protect from serious infection, possibly because those who still get infected receive a low initial exposure dose of the virus.

    https://gvwire.com/2020/07/15/study-wearing-a-mask-dramatically-protects-you-from-severe-covid-19-symptoms/
    ... Depending on how robust the person’s immune system is, a smaller exposure appears to correlate with milder cases of COVID-19. It’s probably because with a smaller amount of virus to deal with, the body’s immune system has a better chance of mounting a defense, the paper’s authors suggest.

    It also appears people who wear masks but contract the disease are much more likely to be asymptomatic, meaning they have COVID-19 but no symptoms....

    ... One of the earliest estimates of asymptomatic COVID infection was from the COVID-19 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Masks were not provided on the ship and the number of asymptomatic infections was below 20%, the report states.

    In a more recent report from a different cruise ship outbreak aboard the Ernest Shackleton, all passengers were issued surgical masks and all staff provided N95 masks after the initial case of COVID-19 on the ship was detected. In that setting with masking, where 128 of 217 passengers and staff eventually tested positive for COVID-19, the study states that 81% of infected patients remained asymptomatic, compared to 18% on the Diamond Princess.

    The authors also referenced a recent outbreak in a seafood processing plant in Oregon where all workers were issued masks each day at work. The rate of asymptomatic infection among the 124 infected was 95%.
    ...

    That`s interesting. It has seemed to me for a few weeks that the seriousness of the illness has been reducing as known infections don`t seem to be implying as many hospital admissions/ deaths as compared to the start of the pandemic.

    I was thinking that the virus may have mutated, but maybe this is a better hypothesis.
    Yes, that would fit with what seems to be happening.
    I must admit, from a position of almost total ignorance, I was incredulous that the quantum of virus to which someone was initially exposed could make a material difference given the rate at which it would replicate within an infected host. But this seems to be a thing after all.

    Presumably super spreaders who shed large quantities of the virus not only infect more people but infect them with more of the virus in one go?
    It may be that a day or so makes a difference, particularly to the non specific immune and inflammatory mechanisms. If they get a headstart then maybe a good immune response is there before it spreads from nose to chest. This may be via host interferon decreasing further replication.

    The virus can replicate quickly, but as a great philosopher once remarked about football, everything is made more complicated by the presence of the opposing team. The host starts the fight very quickly with generic mechanisms.

    This is a good summary of immunology for beginners:

    https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1290989075982360577?s=09
    We should keep up with the zinc and selenium supplements, Foxy?
    I have them in my regime. Vit D and C too.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Rather depressing comments from Dr Fauci about the efficacy of a vaccine. He has suggested it may be no more effective than 50% which would be very poor.

    At least he is telling it like it is. That's what leadership is about.
    https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-vaccine-may-only-be-50-effective-us-disease-expert-warns-12044927

    Yeah, but 50% still cuts R from 3 to 1.5. And if a vaccine makes CV19 less severe when you get it, then it's solved the issue. It's turned CV19 into the flu.
    Surely the ultimate percentage effectiveness of the [finally selected] best in class Covid-19 vaccine will likely be greatly improved by virtue of the fact that a number of leading candidates are being developed simultaneously, involving several of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, investing total development and trialing costs running into many billions of dollars, a scale of investment the world hasn't seen before.
    There will be different vaccines, with different pluses and minuses: bigger immune response & more side effects, or the reverse
    The MMR vaccine made my lips turn blue briefly about 2 hours after administration, remember that from school
    MMR at school?
    Yep, early 90s I think
    I suspect you are mis-remembering which vaccination was involved. MMR is administered twice, the second being a booster at around 3 years 4 months.
    Deleted
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
    Plus most VP candidates recently have carried their home state e.g. Pence, Kaine, Palin, Biden, Lieberman and Cheney and Gore.

    Edwards and Ryan did not but their states were longshots for Kerry and Romney anyway unlike Michigan and Florida for Biden
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    edited August 2020

    https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1292013473489133568

    Sleaze has returned, why does this always happen to Tory Governments with majorities?

    I'm sure that if Labour had the ability to win elections, it would happen to them too! :wink:
    Labour don't need to win elections to be sleazy.. Eric Joyce...??

    Ron Davies>?? the badger watcher??? Prezza...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357

    A beautiful morning in Glasgow! The Clyde is mirror flat, seagulls buzzing around, cyclists, joggers. I love this city far more than Edinburgh.

    Going to be a perfect day , be nice and warm but fresh.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    edited August 2020
    O/ topic, and I've clearly go too much time on my hands but of the seven women in the [picture accompanying the BBC story of lockdown in Preston only two are wearing masks. The picture appears to be in a shopping centre.
  • https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1292013473489133568

    Sleaze has returned, why does this always happen to Tory Governments with majorities?

    When did sleaze ever stop ?

    A former Labour MP and ex-Army officer who admitted making an indecent image of a child has been sentenced.

    Eric Joyce had a 51-second film on a device that showed "the sexual abuse of very young children", Ipswich Crown Court heard.

    The former shadow minister and ex-MP for Falkirk was arrested in 2018.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-53694012
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,357

    https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1292013473489133568

    Sleaze has returned, why does this always happen to Tory Governments with majorities?

    They are Tories, too much money and think public are beneath them and they can treat them any way they like.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    edited August 2020
    If one accepts that MP's in political parties represent the broad spectrum of people in the UK.... its fair to say that sleazy behaviour will happen in all parties.. even the Lib Dems are not immune, not even the Sainted Nicola's party..

    eg there is going to be a reckoning coming soon.. the book should be a very interesting read, especially for Malcy.
  • DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
    I don't think there is any doubt that Biden is already senile.

    The extent and how it may increase are the unknows.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,859

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
    I don't think there is any doubt that Biden is already senile.

    The extent and how it may increase are the unknows.
    The truly incredible thing about this election is exactly the same could be said about Trump. He is nowhere near as sharp as he was 10 years ago or even 4 years ago.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    edited August 2020
    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
    I don't think there is any doubt that Biden is already senile.

    The extent and how it may increase are the unknows.
    He is a typical 77 year old.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    http://news.sky.com/story/uk-demands-france-crack-down-on-migrant-crossings-in-bid-to-make-route-unviable-12044977

    We should try making an organisation of close geographical states with common interests.

    We could call it the European Union

    This will be the downfall of PP despite her having all the qualities that Johnson looks for in occupants of the great offices of state: slavish loyalty and an ability to pretend Brexit is a good idea.

    I have no idea what she thinks the RN are going to do. They certainly don't have any powers that Border Farce don't already have and, while they have the right of non-vexatious passage through French territorial waters, they certainly don't have the right to drop loads of scrandies off on the beach at Grande-Synthe.
  • kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
    I don't think there is any doubt that Biden is already senile.

    The extent and how it may increase are the unknows.
    He is a typical 77 year old.
    The typical 77 year old has been in retirement for over a decade.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought Whitmer was an obvious choice in the early days of this saga: governor experience of a key marginal State in the area of the country that is surely once again going to decide the election (unless it is not close at all). But she is the wrong colour. Could Biden really afford to disappoint his black supporters now? I think not. Its Harris or Rice, probably Harris although Rice would be better.

    If he wants to pick a black female US representative Val Demings would be better than Harris or Rice as like Whitmer but unlike them she is from a key swing state, Florida
    The evidence of VPs swinging their home states isn't great, maybe LBJ and Texas is the standout. What I think is more important for Sleepy Joe is having someone who is obviously capable of being a stand in or doing the heavy lifting for him. He is a weak candidate and one of the reasons for that is he may already be senile. It makes his number 2 unusually important. For me, Rice ticks those boxes better than the others.
    I don't think there is any doubt that Biden is already senile.

    The extent and how it may increase are the unknows.
    He is a typical 77 year old.
    The typical 77 year old has been in retirement for over a decade.
    Yes. It's not ideal. But I wouldn't on the evidence go with "senile" or "has dementia". This is loose and overly derogatory.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1292013473489133568

    Sleaze has returned, why does this always happen to Tory Governments with majorities?

    I'm sure that if Labour had the ability to win elections, it would happen to them too! :wink:
    It has - even when they lose - and let's not forget the LDs - Smith/Thorpe/Rennard/Moran.... :)
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,751
    So where we’re at then.

    Early use of O2 support rather than delay followed by ventilation, patients rest in prone rather than on back, use of dexamethasone. Combined impact on mortality rate appears to be circa 50%.

    Other therapeutics moving through the system to improve this further.

    Worst case vaccine likely to reduce mortality by a further 50% / halve R and will likely be in a lot of (Western) arms in a timeline measured in mere months rather than years.

    Removal of perhaps 40% of the excess deaths figure from the statistical total that were caused by lockdown rather than the virus.

    And that’s without considering what might be a tailing off of cases requiring hospitalisation in places where it was previously rampant. Possibly due to T-cell immunity leading to natural burn out, though perhaps a behavioural artefact of the most vulnerable.

    Thankfully Covid-19 is fast moving from something genuinely frightening into damp squib territory. Some people will likely still continue to become seriously ill and die of it but perhaps come the spring bluebells season, everyone can stop with the doom mongering and we can all start picking up the pieces of our economy and society and stop living a half life. And Sean can go back to playing spin the bottle with a bus load of Arizonan cheerleaders or whatever it is he likes to do.

    It’s a sunny day, those feeling down have plenty of reason to feel optimistic. No doubt for saying this I’ll get called an ignorant chimpanzee or something by the mathematicians here with a chip on their shoulder but big picture, things are looking up.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    kinabalu said:

    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    My browser for some reason recommened an article from a website I'd never heard of before, which had a rather peculiar premise about 'How Corbyn unmasked comedy'.

    It seems to be saying tha anti-establishmentism is the key to comedy, and because some famous comedians and comedy programmes disliked Corbyn or did such things as 'blamed Corbyn for Johnson’s victory without taking responsibility for helping Johnson establish his harmless clown persona', that means they were on the same side as 'the establisment'. It calls out Charlie Brooker for a bit on the Corbyn-Branson row which apparently included far more time attacking Corbyn than Branson and didn't consider corporate interests (that Corbyn was indeed wrong about what he claimed I guess is not of relevance).

    https://www.redpepper.org.uk/how-corbyn-unmasked-comedy/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

    Blaming Corbyn for losing an election? Perish the thought. Apparently comedians are are supposed to be political radicals at all times. It's silly of political conservatives to moan that there's too much left wing comedy out there, without Corbynites also now suggesting the comedy establishment is not doing its job because they mocked the great man. (Ed M didn't get it easy either of course).

    Onthe other hand, the article itself was therefore of great comedic value.

    As we are seeing with the laughable conspiracies around the 'Labour Report' one of the key problems with Corbynism is that it has no safety valve of self-doubt or ability to admit its own failings, as it is predicated on the man and his supporters being uniquely virtuous. Otherwise, what is the point? If you admit nuance and the validity of different views as reasonably held and having their merits within Labour's tradition, why put forward someone the public hate, who even he would admit isn't exactly a natural in the role of leader? Why put up with the ossuary he hangs his clothes in or evidence of managerial incompetence? It only makes sense if he and you have hit upon something uniquely virtuous and everyone else is a nefarious Blairite/Tory acting out of venality and malice.

    So comedians must be to blame, not Corbyn. Or Jews. Or Labour officials. Or Laura Kuenssberg, Countdown hosts, anyone who doesn't see the unique virtues of the man or his words must be a bad actor. It's a cultish creed Labour need to stamp out and quarantine itself from as it's just so dangerous - not initially as they have power over very little and are reduced to attacking minor celebrities - but as it rots the brain and would cause huge problems were it to be over something serious where errors had been made it was impossible to reasonably course correct without blaming some conspiracy.
    Thank you for this entertaining mix of projection and amateur psychiatry. Now here is what actually happened and why -

    In 2015 in a climate favourable to re-election the party suppressed its radicalism - in both content and messaging - for fear of being rogered by the tory press and (linked) of spooking the denizens of Middle England.

    Result - a Conservative majority government. Reaction - Fuck it then. Let's stop poncing around. Let's drop the timidity. It's sterile and it's getting us nowhere in any case. We'll shift left. Elect a properly socialist leader and run on a radical platform. No apologies for it. Give the voters the choice and see what happens.

    What did happen? - Another loss but close and a better performance than achieved under the previous 2 leaders. And this despite Jeremy Corbyn being a sub-optimal PM candidate on a personal level (deficiency of brain power).

    Moral - The left nearly won a GE with a poor leader. With better packaging we can do so one day soon.
    Labour didn't lose the 2015 election, particularly in England. They actually had a net gain IN ENGLAND of 4 seats. It was the collapse of the LD's, significantly, but by no means exclusively to the Tories, that put Cameron back in No 10, albeit with a small overall majority than the Coalition had had. It was the rise in the SNP vote that did for Labour.
    Milliband should have stayed as leader.
This discussion has been closed.