politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Biden-Trump betting narrows as the Democratic convention,

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Biden-Trump betting narrows as the Democratic convention, now virtual, opens

WH2020 The Biden-Trump betting narrows as the Convention, now virtual opens online. Chart @betdatapolitics pic.twitter.com/UgSuyvEQzG

Read the full story here

Gadfly

First!

Foxy

Second, like Trump.

IshmaelZ

Biggest palatial betting event of all time, surely?

Does the hacker keep changing it or is there a cache that needs clearing or something?

kamski

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

DavidL

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

DavidL

My wife is going in for an operation today. I have to have her at the hospital by 7.30, hence the early start. The indications are that the NHS are still a million miles from capacity or normality. She was tested for Covid on Friday at a largely empty but well staffed testing station. The NHS really needs to get back to the day job.

tlg86

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53796434

The prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, has postponed the country's general election by a month amid a spike in coronavirus cases.

IshmaelZ

DavidL said:

My wife is going in for an operation today. I have to have her at the hospital by 7.30, hence the early start. The indications are that the NHS are still a million miles from capacity or normality. She was tested for Covid on Friday at a largely empty but well staffed testing station. The NHS really needs to get back to the day job.

Best wishes for her.

alex_

Coronavirus: every day we get new headlines about how we have “record cases” as the “virus continues to grow”, as if this is somehow unexpected. It’s a PANDEMIC! You know what happens with pandemics? A huge proportion of the population/planet get it!

It is estimated that 1/3 of the planet got Swine flu in 2010. Imagine if we had been reporting daily on the number of people getting that, and operating a reporting basis that any one dying and/or hospitalised with a positive test was dying and/or hospitalised because of that virus! I think it’s fair to say that far more deaths would have been attributed to it than actually were!

Whilst i’m not necessarily disputing that Covid is probably dangerous than Swine Flu, has anyone stopped to ask the question WHY the vastly huge majority of those dying are elderly and/or with serious existing health conditions, whilst huge numbers of young/healthy are barely affected at all? Could it possibly be that in many cases COVID is not causing their deaths?

What would the “excess deaths” be in a normal year if we effectively shut hospitals down for six months? Possibly somewhat higher than normal...?

As I say, the pandemic infecting most people should probably be assumed by governments. If they deciding to make this basic assumption and actually started focusing more on health outcomes (across all areas) how might the policies change?

Nigelb

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

Nigelb

Even in its own skewed terms, Ofqal seems to have failed.

A-level grades 'drop below three-year average', new analysis suggests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53799860

This is abysmal:
...The Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) said it looked at 65,000 exam entries in 41 subjects from sixth form colleges and found that grades were 20% lower than historic performances for similar students in those colleges....

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

My wife is going in for an operation today. I have to have her at the hospital by 7.30, hence the early start. The indications are that the NHS are still a million miles from capacity or normality. She was tested for Covid on Friday at a largely empty but well staffed testing station. The NHS really needs to get back to the day job.

All the very best, Mr L.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Hope it all goes well, Mr. L.

Nigelb

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

Philip_Thompson

Palatial Betting has to be something that would be of interest to Trump surely?

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/797584449047265281

Philip_Thompson

Best wishes for Mrs L.

OldKingCole

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

My wife has an on-going small and apparently non-malignant dermatological problem. She had one growth removed early this year, privately. What with one thing and another, upwards of £1k, mainly the dermatologist's time and skill.
Now it's recurred and the GP said she needs a further consultant review...... no, needn't pay that sort of money; I'll refer you.
So we had a call from an appointment booking service..... you can go to.... naming four reasonably local centres. OK.... naming the most convenient. Not, sorry, nothing in the foreseeable. OK, another. Same.
Turns out there's NO possibility of a dermatologist appointment this year in Mid or N Essex.

Foxy

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

Philip_Thompson

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Nigelb

Thanks for putting me right, OKK & Foxy.
That’s both interesting and potentially worrying for a lot of people.

Peter_the_Punter

kamski said:

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

No, there's a strong CNN poll for him just out. Other recent polls have also been sort of ok for him, so the CNN figures may be reflecting a trend; it's not strong but I would have expected to see Biden pulling away by now and he's not.

Foxy

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Philip_Thompson

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Do hospital acquired infections like MRSA spread just via surfaces or do they spread via aerosols too?

NerysHughes

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

It is also the fact that many GP surgeries are still refusing to see people, therefore are not referring people to hospital

Scott_xP

IshmaelZ

Philip_Thompson said:

Palatial Betting has to be something that would be of interest to Trump surely?

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/797584449047265281

The usual PB advice is to lay the shit out of Blenheim, but Scone at 20/1 looks value.

OldKingCole

I have to say I've never had a remarkably high opinion of dermatology. In my experience patients rarely die..... although there are potentially fatal skin conditions. Equally, they take for ever to recover from whatever it is.

For an NHS positive, I've recently been discharged by the Prostate Cancer clinic; now down to six monthly blood tests, and the GP to review and refer if necessary. But the Registrar, when we had the phone consultation, said he didn't expect I'd be back.

alex_

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Philip_Thompson

Congratulations on the discharge OKC.

Philip_Thompson

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

A week before? What happens if someone acquires the infection after their test and then comes in asymptomatically.

rcs1000

Peter_the_Punter said:

kamski said:

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

No, there's a strong CNN poll for him just out. Other recent polls have also been sort of ok for him, so the CNN figures may be reflecting a trend; it's not strong but I would have expected to see Biden pulling away by now and he's not.

Biden is on 51% in the 538 poll tracker, which is pretty much his high watermark. Trump has, however, improved off his lows.

See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

OldKingCole

Philip_Thompson said:

Congratulations on the discharge OKC.

Thanks.

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kamski said:

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

No, there's a strong CNN poll for him just out. Other recent polls have also been sort of ok for him, so the CNN figures may be reflecting a trend; it's not strong but I would have expected to see Biden pulling away by now and he's not.

Biden is on 51% in the 538 poll tracker, which is pretty much his high watermark. Trump has, however, improved off his lows.

See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Guessing this is Don't Knows opting for a candidate then since they're not excluded in US polls?

Historically do Don't Knows tend to go more towards the incumbent or the challenger when a POTUS seeks re-election? Or do they split relatively evenly?

IshmaelZ

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

Alistair

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

Alistair

QAnon is the new Tea Party. Send post.

Foxy

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Do hospital acquired infections like MRSA spread just via surfaces or do they spread via aerosols too?

No, MRSA is a surface contaminant. It is pretty rare now, we only get a dozen or so cases a year in my Trust.

alex_

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

A week before? What happens if someone acquires the infection after their test and then comes in asymptomatically.

What if, what if, what if...?

Somebody having surgery can be advised to limit contact with other people in the lead up to an operation. Somebody who has tested negative is very unlikely to contract the virus in any specific week, especially at current levels of virus circulation in the population. Somebody having routine surgery is very unlikely to come into contact with many people in a hospital other than the clinical staff treating them (and anyone else - well all the current procedures Foxy is referring to would be irrelevant anyway). The clinical staff will all be wearing full PPE...

At what point are we allowed to ask how many people are dying because hospitals aren't running at full capacity...?

All i'm calling for is risk assessment, proportionate in scale to other managed risks that are run every day in every hospital on a routine basis. An outbreak of legionnaires disease. MRSA. E-coli in food. Dodgy batch of medicine. Not the Black Death.

Philip_Thompson

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Do hospital acquired infections like MRSA spread just via surfaces or do they spread via aerosols too?

No, MRSA is a surface contaminant. It is pretty rare now, we only get a dozen or so cases a year in my Trust.

Thanks Dr Foxy. Makes sense.

eristdoof

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

A week before? What happens if someone acquires the infection after their test and then comes in asymptomatically.

Are you proposing testing every day then?
What is the current practice for testing medical staff testing in the UK?
If there is little testing of medical staff, then the problem is significantly worse than if testing once a week.

alex_

IshmaelZ said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

Yes, to be honest i know that. So it comes down to whether the procedures being put in place are proportionate to the risks faced, given the negative consequences (which surely nobody denies) of running hospitals at 50% operation.

A question - under what circumstances is it likely that somebody, somewhere will actually decide that the risk suppression is having a negative affect on overall clinical outcomes throughout the population, and COVID needs to be managed just like anything else?

eristdoof

NerysHughes said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

It is also the fact that many GP surgeries are still refusing to see people, therefore are not referring people to hospital

I think that GP surgeries closing down has been one of the biggest mistakes in the UK. I speak as someone who had to visit my GP (in Germany) a few times since April.

Foxy

IshmaelZ said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

All planned admissions and any GA daycare get screened 48 hours before admission, but that doesn't negate the need for PPE as the swabs have a high false negative rate.

DecrepiterJohnL

IshmaelZ said:

Biggest palatial betting event of all time, surely?

Does the hacker keep changing it or is there a cache that needs clearing or something?

Did it ever get fixed? Is @rcs1000 on the case or even aware?

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1295248345343172610

Beibheirli_C

eristdoof said:

NerysHughes said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

It is also the fact that many GP surgeries are still refusing to see people, therefore are not referring people to hospital

I think that GP surgeries closing down has been one of the biggest mistakes in the UK. I speak as someone who had to visit my GP (in Germany) a few times since April.

The NHS is protecting itself, just like any bureaucracy. Some of my elderly relatives cannot get treatment for any of their ongoing conditions whereas my GP either has a bone-headed receptionist or the doctor from Catch 22.

eristdoof

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

" And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data."

In data analysis terms that is a huge and basic mistake.

Foxy

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

A week before? What happens if someone acquires the infection after their test and then comes in asymptomatically.

Are you proposing testing every day then?
What is the current practice for testing medical staff testing in the UK?
If there is little testing of medical staff, then the problem is significantly worse than if testing once a week.

We have all been tested on a single occasion for antibodies. No plans for staff swabbing that I am aware of, though the private hospitals do.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kamski said:

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

No, there's a strong CNN poll for him just out. Other recent polls have also been sort of ok for him, so the CNN figures may be reflecting a trend; it's not strong but I would have expected to see Biden pulling away by now and he's not.

Biden is on 51% in the 538 poll tracker, which is pretty much his high watermark. Trump has, however, improved off his lows.

See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Guessing this is Don't Knows opting for a candidate then since they're not excluded in US polls?

Historically do Don't Knows tend to go more towards the incumbent or the challenger when a POTUS seeks re-election? Or do they split relatively evenly?

Don't knows tend to break 60:40 for the incumbent, although there may be a shy Trump factor this time.

Still, if biden does get North of 51%, it's hard to see him losing. He's tracking about 4-5 points above where Ms Clinton was in 2016.

alex_

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

rcs1000

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IshmaelZ said:

Biggest palatial betting event of all time, surely?

Does the hacker keep changing it or is there a cache that needs clearing or something?

Did it ever get fixed? Is @rcs1000 on the case or even aware?

Aware, just haven't sorted it yet.

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

Palatial Betting has to be something that would be of interest to Trump surely?

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/797584449047265281

Trump has not aged well in four years, has he?

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/halfon4harlowMP/status/1295249257214234628

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1295249983327866880

alex_

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

All planned admissions and any GA daycare get screened 48 hours before admission, but that doesn't negate the need for PPE as the swabs have a high false negative rate.

Of course it doesn't "negate" the need for PPE. But the question effectively being asked is whether the current procedures are being implemented with ONE purpose - reduce the risk of COVID out of hospitals to an absolute minimum. Even if reducing capacity to a level which creates compensating negative clinical outcomes. Because if this true, and the difference is material, then the risk of COVID must be allowed to rise to enable the others to fall.

Mysticrose

I'm slightly uneasy about the difference between the Biden-Harris approval polling and the narrowing in the betting between Biden-Trump. I don't like things like that.

Before CV-19 I thought Trump was a shoo-in. That has been turned upside down by events.

My sense, but I'm edgy on this, is that Biden is going to turn out by chance to have been an utter stroke of genius as the choice. What do you most want in a national, international, crisis? A volatile loon or a safe pair of hands?

That's why Joe will probably win.

eristdoof

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kamski said:

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

No, there's a strong CNN poll for him just out. Other recent polls have also been sort of ok for him, so the CNN figures may be reflecting a trend; it's not strong but I would have expected to see Biden pulling away by now and he's not.

Biden is on 51% in the 538 poll tracker, which is pretty much his high watermark. Trump has, however, improved off his lows.

See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Guessing this is Don't Knows opting for a candidate then since they're not excluded in US polls?

Historically do Don't Knows tend to go more towards the incumbent or the challenger when a POTUS seeks re-election? Or do they split relatively evenly?

Don't knows tend to break 60:40 for the incumbent, although there may be a shy Trump factor this time.

Still, if biden does get North of 51%, it's hard to see him losing. He's tracking about 4-5 points above where Ms Clinton was in 2016.

"Don't knows tend to break 60:40 for the incumbent, "
You need to be careful here, if incumbents on average win 55:45, then an average of 60:40 don't know break will be more or less the same as a basic proportional allocation. On top of that probably quite a high proportion of don't knows will end up not voting, as "don't know" will correlate highly with "not very motivated".

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1295251186753380352

noneoftheabove

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1295249983327866880

Even Grant Shapps didnt fancy lying his head off for this one.

Foxy

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

All planned admissions and any GA daycare get screened 48 hours before admission, but that doesn't negate the need for PPE as the swabs have a high false negative rate.

Of course it doesn't "negate" the need for PPE. But the question effectively being asked is whether the current procedures are being implemented with ONE purpose - reduce the risk of COVID out of hospitals to an absolute minimum. Even if reducing capacity to a level which creates compensating negative clinical outcomes. Because if this true, and the difference is material, then the risk of COVID must be allowed to rise to enable the others to fall.

We follow NICE guidance, who supposedly take all cost efficacy into their assessment.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng179

The entire NHS England is operating under Command and Control still, with no real local autonomy. Look upwards if you want to apportion blame.

eristdoof

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

NerysHughes

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

My wife has an on-going small and apparently non-malignant dermatological problem. She had one growth removed early this year, privately. What with one thing and another, upwards of £1k, mainly the dermatologist's time and skill.
Now it's recurred and the GP said she needs a further consultant review...... no, needn't pay that sort of money; I'll refer you.
So we had a call from an appointment booking service..... you can go to.... naming four reasonably local centres. OK.... naming the most convenient. Not, sorry, nothing in the foreseeable. OK, another. Same.
Turns out there's NO possibility of a dermatologist appointment this year in Mid or N Essex.

What your wife is experiencing with the NHS is endemic throughout it. Vast swathes of people are using Covid as a reason to not do their jobs. In this case what are the people who work in these dermatology centres doing all day if they are not seeing any patients.
There are huge numbers of people in the NHS going to work each day and are doing nothing. My wife is one of them, she regularly comes home and says "yet another day when I have done nothing". She is a nurse on a ward.

The lunancy of shutting the NHS to protect it from Covid must be killing hundreds of people. Currently less than 1% of hospital beds are taken up with Covid yet we have shut the entire system beacuse of it.

This website provides an interesting snapshot of hospital data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

The most startling one for me was the number of NHS staff who were off sick on the 8th August 2020.

Have a guess.

Its 60,367.

Beibheirli_C

Foxy said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

All planned admissions and any GA daycare get screened 48 hours before admission, but that doesn't negate the need for PPE as the swabs have a high false negative rate.

Of course it doesn't "negate" the need for PPE. But the question effectively being asked is whether the current procedures are being implemented with ONE purpose - reduce the risk of COVID out of hospitals to an absolute minimum. Even if reducing capacity to a level which creates compensating negative clinical outcomes. Because if this true, and the difference is material, then the risk of COVID must be allowed to rise to enable the others to fall.

We follow NICE guidance, who supposedly take all cost efficacy into their assessment.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng179

"... cost efficacy ...."

Just what we need for a pandemic

eristdoof

NerysHughes said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

My wife has an on-going small and apparently non-malignant dermatological problem. She had one growth removed early this year, privately. What with one thing and another, upwards of £1k, mainly the dermatologist's time and skill.
Now it's recurred and the GP said she needs a further consultant review...... no, needn't pay that sort of money; I'll refer you.
So we had a call from an appointment booking service..... you can go to.... naming four reasonably local centres. OK.... naming the most convenient. Not, sorry, nothing in the foreseeable. OK, another. Same.
Turns out there's NO possibility of a dermatologist appointment this year in Mid or N Essex.

What your wife is experiencing with the NHS is endemic throughout it. Vast swathes of people are using Covid as a reason to not do their jobs. In this case what are the people who work in these dermatology centres doing all day if they are not seeing any patients.
There are huge numbers of people in the NHS going to work each day and are doing nothing. My wife is one of them, she regularly comes home and says "yet another day when I have done nothing". She is a nurse on a ward.

The lunancy of shutting the NHS to protect it from Covid must be killing hundreds of people. Currently less than 1% of hospital beds are taken up with Covid yet we have shut the entire system beacuse of it.

This website provides an interesting snapshot of hospital data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

The most startling one for me was the number of NHS staff who were off sick on the 8th August 2020.

Have a guess.

Its 60,367.

Can you give us an average figure for being off sick on a Saturday in early August? Although the number sounds high, with no reference value, it means nothing.

Philip_Thompson

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

All planned admissions and any GA daycare get screened 48 hours before admission, but that doesn't negate the need for PPE as the swabs have a high false negative rate.

Of course it doesn't "negate" the need for PPE. But the question effectively being asked is whether the current procedures are being implemented with ONE purpose - reduce the risk of COVID out of hospitals to an absolute minimum. Even if reducing capacity to a level which creates compensating negative clinical outcomes. Because if this true, and the difference is material, then the risk of COVID must be allowed to rise to enable the others to fall.

Why "must" it?

When COVID rose the death totals rose and we had excess deaths. When COVID fell the death totals fell and we didn't have excess deaths. Controlling the virus saves lives.

If you want to be coldly logical and simply try and save lives then what the NHS is doing is working.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

My wife is going in for an operation today. I have to have her at the hospital by 7.30, hence the early start. The indications are that the NHS are still a million miles from capacity or normality. She was tested for Covid on Friday at a largely empty but well staffed testing station. The NHS really needs to get back to the day job.

Good luck David, SHS definitely needs to get moving , my wife has been almost 3 months waiting for CT scan and no sign of when it will be and yet another appointment changed to a telephone call.

alex_

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

Nigelb

IshmaelZ said:

Biggest palatial betting event of all time, surely?

Does the hacker keep changing it or is there a cache that needs clearing or something?

No, I think we’ve got the first website named by autocorrect.

alex_

Foxy said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

IshmaelZ said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

Um, pre-procedure testing already happens. Obviously.

All planned admissions and any GA daycare get screened 48 hours before admission, but that doesn't negate the need for PPE as the swabs have a high false negative rate.

Of course it doesn't "negate" the need for PPE. But the question effectively being asked is whether the current procedures are being implemented with ONE purpose - reduce the risk of COVID out of hospitals to an absolute minimum. Even if reducing capacity to a level which creates compensating negative clinical outcomes. Because if this true, and the difference is material, then the risk of COVID must be allowed to rise to enable the others to fall.

We follow NICE guidance, who supposedly take all cost efficacy into their assessment.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng179

The entire NHS England is operating under Command and Control still, with no real local autonomy. Look upwards if you want to apportion blame.

And, if you don't mind be asking - what is your view on that? NICE are presumably operating on a highly precautionary principle, because the evidence on COVID is so limited so is probably being "marked down". By the time it has been marked back up the damage will be permanent.

Philip_Thompson

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1295248345343172610

Its the least-bad solution in a year when no exams have taken place. Just hurry up and do this already England.

Beibheirli_C

eristdoof said:

NerysHughes said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

My wife has an on-going small and apparently non-malignant dermatological problem. She had one growth removed early this year, privately. What with one thing and another, upwards of £1k, mainly the dermatologist's time and skill.
Now it's recurred and the GP said she needs a further consultant review...... no, needn't pay that sort of money; I'll refer you.
So we had a call from an appointment booking service..... you can go to.... naming four reasonably local centres. OK.... naming the most convenient. Not, sorry, nothing in the foreseeable. OK, another. Same.
Turns out there's NO possibility of a dermatologist appointment this year in Mid or N Essex.

What your wife is experiencing with the NHS is endemic throughout it. Vast swathes of people are using Covid as a reason to not do their jobs. In this case what are the people who work in these dermatology centres doing all day if they are not seeing any patients.
There are huge numbers of people in the NHS going to work each day and are doing nothing. My wife is one of them, she regularly comes home and says "yet another day when I have done nothing". She is a nurse on a ward.

The lunancy of shutting the NHS to protect it from Covid must be killing hundreds of people. Currently less than 1% of hospital beds are taken up with Covid yet we have shut the entire system beacuse of it.

This website provides an interesting snapshot of hospital data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

The most startling one for me was the number of NHS staff who were off sick on the 8th August 2020.

Have a guess.

Its 60,367.

Can you give us an average figure for being off sick on a Saturday in early August? Although the number sounds high, with no reference value, it means nothing.

Over a million staff, 60K sick. 6% ...

Stocky

NerysHughes said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

My wife has an on-going small and apparently non-malignant dermatological problem. She had one growth removed early this year, privately. What with one thing and another, upwards of £1k, mainly the dermatologist's time and skill.
Now it's recurred and the GP said she needs a further consultant review...... no, needn't pay that sort of money; I'll refer you.
So we had a call from an appointment booking service..... you can go to.... naming four reasonably local centres. OK.... naming the most convenient. Not, sorry, nothing in the foreseeable. OK, another. Same.
Turns out there's NO possibility of a dermatologist appointment this year in Mid or N Essex.

What your wife is experiencing with the NHS is endemic throughout it. Vast swathes of people are using Covid as a reason to not do their jobs. In this case what are the people who work in these dermatology centres doing all day if they are not seeing any patients.
There are huge numbers of people in the NHS going to work each day and are doing nothing. My wife is one of them, she regularly comes home and says "yet another day when I have done nothing". She is a nurse on a ward.

The lunancy of shutting the NHS to protect it from Covid must be killing hundreds of people. Currently less than 1% of hospital beds are taken up with Covid yet we have shut the entire system beacuse of it.

This website provides an interesting snapshot of hospital data.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

The most startling one for me was the number of NHS staff who were off sick on the 8th August 2020.

Have a guess.

Its 60,367.

TBH that chimes with what I`m hearing too. It is partly our peculiar national predelection to fetishise the NHS that has got us here.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1295255771760951296

kamski

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kamski said:

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

No, there's a strong CNN poll for him just out. Other recent polls have also been sort of ok for him, so the CNN figures may be reflecting a trend; it's not strong but I would have expected to see Biden pulling away by now and he's not.

Biden is on 51% in the 538 poll tracker, which is pretty much his high watermark. Trump has, however, improved off his lows.

See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Guessing this is Don't Knows opting for a candidate then since they're not excluded in US polls?

Historically do Don't Knows tend to go more towards the incumbent or the challenger when a POTUS seeks re-election? Or do they split relatively evenly?

Don't knows tend to break 60:40 for the incumbent, although there may be a shy Trump factor this time.

Still, if biden does get North of 51%, it's hard to see him losing. He's tracking about 4-5 points above where Ms Clinton was in 2016.

I'm not sure one CNN poll should move the betting that much. Currently Biden is 8.0% ahead nationally on the 538 average. A week ago he was 7.8% ahead. There's a bit of noise but his lead has been very stable for the last 3 weeks, while the betting has seen a bit of a rise in Trump's implied chances during this time.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1295256431671861248

malcolmg

OldKingCole said:

I have to say I've never had a remarkably high opinion of dermatology. In my experience patients rarely die..... although there are potentially fatal skin conditions. Equally, they take for ever to recover from whatever it is.

For an NHS positive, I've recently been discharged by the Prostate Cancer clinic; now down to six monthly blood tests, and the GP to review and refer if necessary. But the Registrar, when we had the phone consultation, said he didn't expect I'd be back.

@OldKingCole
Congratulations OKC, great news.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1295248345343172610

Its the least-bad solution in a year when no exams have taken place. Just hurry up and do this already England.

Great they've now completely screwed up this year's A level results, you can't have one rule for one set of exams and another for the other set of exams.

And this years A levels were also the new GCSE guinea pig year..

Philip_Thompson

alex_ said:

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

Its the teacher rankings that is the issue. The algorithm has treated the teacher rankings as divinely accurate then provided the results based on that as to what would be accurate.

Which is patently absurd! The issue with algorithms is if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Unless the teachers were able to with the Wisdom of Solomon and Mystic Meg combined get the ranking in 100% the right order then anyone ranked lower than they should have been will be punitively getting a terrible grade from the algorithm. The average comes out fine because for everyone getting a terrible grade below what they should have got there is someone else getting a great grade above what they should have got - but that doesn't make things better or acceptable for those that have suffered. If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of the results then being reasonable the benefit of the doubt should go to the student.

That is insane. It should never have happened. The results are not accurate, they are not fair, they don't meet what has historically happened and averaging out errors by insisting two wrongs make a right is madness.

Stocky

alex_ said:

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

"it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows?"

- On the basis of the teacher-produced pupil ranking. If the algorithm says there should be a U in that subject at that particular school the lowest ranked pupil gets it.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1295256970182696960

Stocky

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1295248345343172610

Its the least-bad solution in a year when no exams have taken place. Just hurry up and do this already England.

Great they've now completely screwed up this year's A level results, you can't have one rule for one set of exams and another for the other set of exams.

And this years A levels were also the new GCSE guinea pig year..

I wouldn`t assume that the A level results will end up being the final ones.

Philip_Thompson

Stocky said:

alex_ said:

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

"it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows?"

- On the basis of the teacher-produced pupil ranking. If the algorithm says there should be a U in that subject at that particular school the lowest ranked pupil gets it.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Since when were teachers able to rank pupils 100% in the correct order with zero mistakes?

NickPalmer

malcolmg said:

OldKingCole said:

I have to say I've never had a remarkably high opinion of dermatology. In my experience patients rarely die..... although there are potentially fatal skin conditions. Equally, they take for ever to recover from whatever it is.

For an NHS positive, I've recently been discharged by the Prostate Cancer clinic; now down to six monthly blood tests, and the GP to review and refer if necessary. But the Registrar, when we had the phone consultation, said he didn't expect I'd be back.

@OldKingCole
Congratulations OKC, great news.

That's terrific! It must be a real lightening of the skies for you.

eek

alex_ said:

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

Because 2 years ago a student left the exam after 10 minutes (never to return) so was awarded a U. The grading system deduced that U was the typical grade for the worst student in the year and then allocated that grade.

Allocating grades based on past years performance isn't a good idea - unless you are a Preston North End fan - who are now celebrating their 131st league title

Beibheirli_C

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1295248345343172610

Its the least-bad solution in a year when no exams have taken place. Just hurry up and do this already England.

Great they've now completely screwed up this year's A level results, you can't have one rule for one set of exams and another for the other set of exams.

Are you suggesting that we should screw up the GCSE results in order to maintain solidarity with the A Level results? Or achieve some sort of consistency?

MarqueeMark

To anybody in Europe thinking "Maybe we could still have a break in Spain...."

Fuckwits. RIP the Spanish tourism industry......

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-53802226/coronavirus-hundreds-gather-in-madrid-for-anti-mask-protest

alex_

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

Its the teacher rankings that is the issue. The algorithm has treated the teacher rankings as divinely accurate then provided the results based on that as to what would be accurate.

Which is patently absurd! The issue with algorithms is if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Unless the teachers were able to with the Wisdom of Solomon and Mystic Meg combined get the ranking in 100% the right order then anyone ranked lower than they should have been will be punitively getting a terrible grade from the algorithm. The average comes out fine because for everyone getting a terrible grade below what they should have got there is someone else getting a great grade above what they should have got - but that doesn't make things better or acceptable for those that have suffered. If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of the results then being reasonable the benefit of the doubt should go to the student.

That is insane. It should never have happened. The results are not accurate, they are not fair, they don't meet what has historically happened and averaging out errors by insisting two wrongs make a right is madness.

My point in the case of "U"s is that even if the teacher rankings weren't garbage, the algorithm would still fail. Because in normal times "U"s or unexpected poor individual results will strike randomly. It won't conveniently be the weakest pupil who will underperform. It might just as easily be the strongest pupil.

Philip_Thompson

kamski said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kamski said:

The only reasons I can see for Trump's odds improving in the last days are his open attempts to cripple the postal service. Punters are rightly taking this seriously.

No, there's a strong CNN poll for him just out. Other recent polls have also been sort of ok for him, so the CNN figures may be reflecting a trend; it's not strong but I would have expected to see Biden pulling away by now and he's not.

Biden is on 51% in the 538 poll tracker, which is pretty much his high watermark. Trump has, however, improved off his lows.

See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Guessing this is Don't Knows opting for a candidate then since they're not excluded in US polls?

Historically do Don't Knows tend to go more towards the incumbent or the challenger when a POTUS seeks re-election? Or do they split relatively evenly?

Don't knows tend to break 60:40 for the incumbent, although there may be a shy Trump factor this time.

Still, if biden does get North of 51%, it's hard to see him losing. He's tracking about 4-5 points above where Ms Clinton was in 2016.

I'm not sure one CNN poll should move the betting that much. Currently Biden is 8.0% ahead nationally on the 538 average. A week ago he was 7.8% ahead. There's a bit of noise but his lead has been very stable for the last 3 weeks, while the betting has seen a bit of a rise in Trump's implied chances during this time.

I suspect the betting is moving based on concerns over the USPS and that Trump might pull out the stops to steal the election Belarus-style.

The terrible thing this year is we're not just betting on whom the electorate wants to vote for the most, but will they be able to do so freely. From the nation formerly known as the leader of the free world.

DavidL

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

They have blue and green pathways up here. A blue pathway says that you have been isolated for a fortnight before your op. That wasn't possible for my wife so she went on the green pathway which involved a Covid test on Friday with the result texted within 48 hours (hopefully the hospital got it because we didn't).

The test itself was pretty unpleasant, especially the prod up the nose. It's not hard to see either option, plus the perceived much higher risk of catching Covid in hospital rather than anywhere else, reducing the number opting for recommended but not critical surgery/consultations etc. My daughter also works at a local hospital. Her department, photobiology, has roughly 25% of the capacity that it had before as a result of the protocols which come pretty close to one in, one out.

It is astonishing that an NHS that was allegedly working beyond capacity with spiralling waiting lists, has been able to work like this for 5 months now without all hell breaking loose.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1295257883622473730

Nigelb

Foxy said:

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

Foxy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

The Dems will get little boost from a virtual Convention. Indeed even real Conventions seem to produce relatively little in the way of bounce these days, stripped of all meaning and substance they have become rather empty affairs.

The upside is that Trump almost certainly needs these sort of events even more. He feeds off his crowds and hones his messages by how they respond. He looked utterly despondent when his last rally turned into a damp squib and for good reasons. He does not want to campaign by being interviewed by a largely hostile media day after day. He needs that direct link with his base and I am not sure how he is going to replace it.

His press conferences have pretty well tuned into rallies, if you listen to what he spews. But with smaller and tougher audiences.

He gets to jet off steam, and they do get widespread coverage.

Best wishes for the op.

Regarding the emptying hospitals, how much of that is now down to patients being reluctant to go in, and how much to the NHS ?
Clearly there is a significant reduction in capacity owing to COVID measures, but it can’t just be that ?

There are some reluctant patients, but mostly it is reduced capacity from the requirement for Social Distancing, and the PPE/cleaning requirements for procedures and operations.

My dept is running at about 50% capacity.

I'd hope high cleaning standards would be the norm at the best of times anyway?

Maybe if this gets maintained we'll see a reduction in MRSA etc and not just COVID19?

Surface cleaning is not the biggest problem, it is the aerosol generating procedures that slow everything down. Basically everything involving an anaesthetist takes twice as long as it used to do so.

Here’s a random crazy thought. How about anyone involved in routine surgery, surgeons, supporting operating staff and patients are all required to have taken, and passed a COVID test at most 1 week prior to the operation. And we actually try to get hospitals getting back to near full capacity...

And we start thinking again on the basis of risk assessment and not “COVID is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Death”

A week before? What happens if someone acquires the infection after their test and then comes in asymptomatically.

Are you proposing testing every day then?
What is the current practice for testing medical staff testing in the UK?
If there is little testing of medical staff, then the problem is significantly worse than if testing once a week.

We have all been tested on a single occasion for antibodies. No plans for staff swabbing that I am aware of, though the private hospitals do.

Might the new ultra low cost tests help ?
Could be run daily, and give a result very quickly.

It might be possible to combine that with pre-hospital attendance quarantines for elective surgery ? Things like hip replacement operations have taken a massive hit.

MarqueeMark

"The UK does not accept the results of this fraudulent Presidential election & calls for an urgent investigation through @OSCE into its serious flaws & the grisly repression that followed."

Raab can cut and paste that for mid-November....

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/branwenjeffreys/status/1295234429691015169

Philip_Thompson

alex_ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

alex_ said:

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

Its the teacher rankings that is the issue. The algorithm has treated the teacher rankings as divinely accurate then provided the results based on that as to what would be accurate.

Which is patently absurd! The issue with algorithms is if you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Unless the teachers were able to with the Wisdom of Solomon and Mystic Meg combined get the ranking in 100% the right order then anyone ranked lower than they should have been will be punitively getting a terrible grade from the algorithm. The average comes out fine because for everyone getting a terrible grade below what they should have got there is someone else getting a great grade above what they should have got - but that doesn't make things better or acceptable for those that have suffered. If there is any doubt as to the accuracy of the results then being reasonable the benefit of the doubt should go to the student.

That is insane. It should never have happened. The results are not accurate, they are not fair, they don't meet what has historically happened and averaging out errors by insisting two wrongs make a right is madness.

My point in the case of "U"s is that even if the teacher rankings weren't garbage, the algorithm would still fail. Because in normal times "U"s or unexpected poor individual results will strike randomly. It won't conveniently be the weakest pupil who will underperform. It might just as easily be the strongest pupil.

That's what makes the teacher rankings garbage . . .

That's not a failing of the teachers, its a failing of the system designed. Teachers can't be expected to 100% accurately foretell the ranking of their pupils.

Stocky

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1295251186753380352

Good grief. This could end up being even worse for the government than ydoethur predicted weeks ago.

Seems to me that we have got to the point where Johnson needs to step in, over-rule Williamson, and do what Scotland did and award centre assessed grades where they are higher than the algorithm.

eek

Stocky said:

eek said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1295248345343172610

Its the least-bad solution in a year when no exams have taken place. Just hurry up and do this already England.

Great they've now completely screwed up this year's A level results, you can't have one rule for one set of exams and another for the other set of exams.

And this years A levels were also the new GCSE guinea pig year..

I wouldn`t assume that the A level results will end up being the final ones.

The damage has been done though - students who didn't get the grades on Thursday aren't going to the University they wanted to go to and even if they got a place they won't have anywhere to live..


Meanwhile the Education secretary does have a choice to make. Does he want Headmasters to spend the next 2 weeks getting a school ready to open in early September or completing 1000 appeal forms.

Scott_xP

Stocky said:

Seems to me that we have got to the point where Johnson needs to step in, over-rule Williamson, and do what Scotland did and award centre assessed grades where they are higher than the algorithm.

He would also need to sack him

DavidL

Nigelb said:

Even in its own skewed terms, Ofqal seems to have failed.

A-level grades 'drop below three-year average', new analysis suggests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53799860

This is abysmal:
...The Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) said it looked at 65,000 exam entries in 41 subjects from sixth form colleges and found that grades were 20% lower than historic performances for similar students in those colleges....

Gives room for successful appeals in appropriate cases. Unlike Scotland which started with a higher pass rate than normal and then went up, way up, from there beyond any credibility threshold.

MarqueeMark

The UK's Quangocracy really are having a shocker of a year.

Stocky

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

alex_ said:

eristdoof said:

alex_ said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

Reading the lengthy Ofqal document, it seems to be very heavy on rhetorical justification of its statistical approach, and pretty light on the statistics.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909368/6656-1_Awarding_GCSE__AS__A_level__advanced_extension_awards_and_extended_project_qualifications_in_summer_2020_-_interim_report.pdf

Anyone with statistical chops got the time and inclination to wade through it ?
(I suspect one reason it’s several hundred pages long is to discourage such an effort.)

I haven't read the whole thing myself but have seen the extract where they talk about their back testing and the back testing isn't right, they don't test the same thing as what they claim their model does. And they back test using as their test data a portion of their training data.

That is insane

One thing that seems really ridiculous is the situation with some pupils seemingly being randomly assigned "U"s or similar. Among all but the most useless or disinterested students I imagine a U (or very unexpectly poor mark) is often not remotely a sign of ability, but a consequence of random events on the day. The sort of event that can affect a normally straight A student as must as a borderline C/D student. Sometimes more so, because a straight A student is possibly more likely to panic when confronted with something they haven't properly been prepared for, and has more to lose.

No algorithm should be randomly giving people Us because it can have almost no basis for doing so. It can't rely on teacher's rankings because such outcomes in normal exam life won't easily follow ability like that. I imagine the algorithm has looked at schools, noted they normally get a percentage of Us every year, and then just given them out in proportion. Which is an absurd way to decide a pupil's future life. At least if they have had a panic on the day, they can rationalise the outcome (even if not truly reflective of their potential) and own it to some extent. But to be given a U by a computer!!!

I hope you are making this up.
Any system that just randomly assigns "U" grades without good reason is a disgrace. Because some people think the whole procedure is a disgrace is not enough imply what you are claiming.

On what other basis can people be being given Us? By "random" i don't mean that it's completely random - it'll be following the algorithm.

But my point is that in any exam cohort there will be pupils who get unexpected Us (or very poor grades) on isolated papers, due to circumstances on the day. This is normally "random" in the sense that every teacher will know that there will probably be some pupils for whom this happens, but has almost no idea who it is going to happen to.

As the algorithm has tried to replicate past distribution of grades it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows? Obviously it's going to be the exception rather than the rule, but across the entire country there will be unlucky kids. There was a case (obviously caveated as unverified) referenced on here year of a pupil who needed ABB for her university (which was presumably achievable or the Uni wouldn't have accepted her) who got ABU, and consequently couldn't apply anywhere!

"it has assigned "U" or very poor grades, to some pupils. But on what basis, who knows?"

- On the basis of the teacher-produced pupil ranking. If the algorithm says there should be a U in that subject at that particular school the lowest ranked pupil gets it.

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Since when were teachers able to rank pupils 100% in the correct order with zero mistakes?

Well - since never - exactly - but I`d have a lot of faith that teachers will have a pretty good idea and that exam days generally produce few surprises to them. They`d never get it exactly right though. Too many variables.