Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
I thought the rule was officially still two households!
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
I always gave some credence to the "shy Tory" theory in the era of John Major, because it was readily apparent that many Labour voters were willing to display posters showing their support, whereas a Tory window poster or garden stake was a rare thing indeed.
By contrast to the UK Conservatives in that era, in the US the Trump supporters now seem ready to shout their support for him from the rooftops. More likely there are some Democrats who are reluctant to openly express their support for Biden because they feel intimidated.
I also expect the Biden support to firm up on polling day when people who want to show their support for a Green agenda in polls have enough sense to realise that virtue signalling doesn't excuse them from voting directly for the candidate with a hope of defeating the antichrist.
I expect Trump to announce, in the last week or last day(s), a covid vaccine rollout.
The claim only has to last until the votes are cast, after all. Give Trump believers a reason to turn out and rationalise their vote. And afterwards (or, if he did it a bit too soon and it was unmistakeably not going to happen):
”The DEMOCRAT-controlled scientists are blocking your SAFETY. It could be all over but they’re INSISTING on POINTLESS extra tests! SLEEPY JOE and PHONY KAMALA are playing politics with your Lives! And they enjoy MUZZLING you and taking away your AMERICAN FREEDOMS! Sad!”
Yes, it seems inevitable he will claim a vaccine is ready, probably earlier than the last days though with postal voting and momentum factors.
The newest development I've seen is people begin to question why the NHS is still shite at providing normal services. A friend's pregnant wife has just spent the night in hospital waiting to be seen by various experts. They are both sick with worry but no one will see them, they keep getting the same bullshit answers about COVID causing delays but the hospital is completely empty of patients.
I really don't understand what's going on now, it's never been this bad before.
As I have been saying for months on this site, trying to access the NHS whether a Surgery or a Hospital is so difficult, despite hospitals and surgeries being empty. Covid is just being used as an excuse to do nothing. People have not believed me cause they don't think it could possibly be the case. That is until they experience what is going on.
People’s experience is different. My normal GP and the practice where I am temporarily registered are both doing telephone consultations and it was easy to get them to share the hospital discharge papers. And when I recently went to A&E I was seen within minutes.
The newest development I've seen is people begin to question why the NHS is still shite at providing normal services. A friend's pregnant wife has just spent the night in hospital waiting to be seen by various experts. They are both sick with worry but no one will see them, they keep getting the same bullshit answers about COVID causing delays but the hospital is completely empty of patients.
I really don't understand what's going on now, it's never been this bad before.
As I have been saying for months on this site, trying to access the NHS whether a Surgery or a Hospital is so difficult, despite hospitals and surgeries being empty. Covid is just being used as an excuse to do nothing. People have not believed me cause they don't think it could possibly be the case. That is until they experience what is going on.
Just got back from a CT Scan at local hospital which has, I believe around 15 covid patients as the bug has taken off out here, from home and back 1:40 with 20 mins travel each way, hospital working normally. Local doctor has gone back to telephone triage before face to face appointment. Unfortunately the virus has got into our local old people’s home, 2=deaths, 67 residents and 18 staff positive. Time to be even more careful if that’s possible.
Silver's model takes time into account, it should start to firm up for Biden (If the polling remains where it is) as the election approaches. In 2016 there was a latish swing to Trump which yielded his 28 or so % chance with 538. Of course if the polling moves that will move other models more.
So commonsense would say that if nothing changes after the conventions that should have moved the uncertainty down a lot, but apparently there was some good economic data, and that increases the gap between observed reality and hypothesised "fundamentals"...
I think Silver et al are right to add in volatility based on the economy due to:
- people in the US much more invested and interested in shares directly - a strong correlation between the share indices and the election winner - a lot of volatility and momentum in the stock market with QE and the potential for a vaccine - Trump good at linking himself with stock market performance
It is a much better focus for Trump than the culture wars. People have made up their minds on the culture wars already, yes Trumps lot will be motivated but this time so will the anti Trumpers. The few votes that can be shifted will be on the economy.
Yes, I agree, Trump should totally be running on the economy, and I've been scratching my head a little bit over why he's been doing the Law and Order thing. One thing that occurs to me reading the reports about the Trump campaign being short on cash is that maybe he still feels like he needs to scare his base into donating more, and he'll go back to the economy in the last few weeks, which also leaves a bit more time for people's personal financial situations to get better. If the strategy is indeed "leave the swing voter persuasion until last", that's a reason to think his situation will improve in the final stretch.
As always with Trump, you can never quite tell if there's some brilliant cunning s strategy at work or if it's just a confused old man reacting to what he sees on the telly.
I find it depressing, truly depressing, that people think the economy should be a plus for Trump.
Trump is the most disastrous President for the economy of my lifetime. He is Gordon Brown on steroids. He has pumped primed the economy to the nth degree - with it running a nearly 5% deficit last year before the recession even hit.
We made a big deal recently about the fact that during the peak of the recession our total national debt reached the £2 trillion threshold. That was including furlough and an all-time cumulative total figure - including all borrowing before, during and after the financial crisis. In contrast the US deficit (not debt) last year alone was $1 trillion.
If anyone at all thinks Trump has been good for the economy then not a single lesson has been learnt from the financial crisis. Trump is creating another crisis with his totally irresponsible mismanagement of the economy.
Certainly so, but Trum doesn't need to keep the bubble expanding much longer, just 8 weeks.
And he needs people to be too stupid or ignorant to realise what is going on.
Anyone who supports this economic insanity should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Deficits are a tax on the future so Trump is one of the highest tax Presidents ever.
Its one thing running a deficit during a recession, or reducing it gradually after one, but he's increased it to 5% before the recession. I shudder to think what it will be this year.
GOP are lying hypocrites. Before Trump, debt and deficits were the devil's work to be resisted at all times.
Exactly. I'm a deficit hawk, there is good reason to control the deficit. Countercyclical borrowing is one thing, but doing so during a growth period? And hailing it as a boom? Utterly, utterly irresponsible.
I expect Trump to announce, in the last week or last day(s), a covid vaccine rollout.
The claim only has to last until the votes are cast, after all. Give Trump believers a reason to turn out and rationalise their vote. And afterwards (or, if he did it a bit too soon and it was unmistakeably not going to happen):
”The DEMOCRAT-controlled scientists are blocking your SAFETY. It could be all over but they’re INSISTING on POINTLESS extra tests! SLEEPY JOE and PHONY KAMALA are playing politics with your Lives! And they enjoy MUZZLING you and taking away your AMERICAN FREEDOMS! Sad!”
I expect this too. I can even see people queuing and being vaccinated in the week before the election (so an announcement about mid-October). It takes months before a vaccine can be seen as ineffective, by which time the catering for the inauguration is being finalised.
It has just occured to me that this is another reason why Trump hates postal voting. Any attempt to manipulate events in the last week before the election has much less effect, because the time at which the voters place their cross is spread out over weeks.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
The guidance is more nuanced but the *law* is thirty. Sounds like the guidance might be enforced as law.
The newest development I've seen is people begin to question why the NHS is still shite at providing normal services. A friend's pregnant wife has just spent the night in hospital waiting to be seen by various experts. They are both sick with worry but no one will see them, they keep getting the same bullshit answers about COVID causing delays but the hospital is completely empty of patients.
I really don't understand what's going on now, it's never been this bad before.
As I have been saying for months on this site, trying to access the NHS whether a Surgery or a Hospital is so difficult, despite hospitals and surgeries being empty. Covid is just being used as an excuse to do nothing. People have not believed me cause they don't think it could possibly be the case. That is until they experience what is going on.
People’s experience is different. My normal GP and the practice where I am temporarily registered are both doing telephone consultations and it was easy to get them to share the hospital discharge papers. And when I recently went to A&E I was seen within minutes.
Perhaps I have just been lucky.
There are some surgeries and hospitals which are doing much better than others, but there are so many where they do anything to avoid seeing people. There have been numerous reports on here of that.
Silver's model takes time into account, it should start to firm up for Biden (If the polling remains where it is) as the election approaches. In 2016 there was a latish swing to Trump which yielded his 28 or so % chance with 538. Of course if the polling moves that will move other models more.
So commonsense would say that if nothing changes after the conventions that should have moved the uncertainty down a lot, but apparently there was some good economic data, and that increases the gap between observed reality and hypothesised "fundamentals"...
I think Silver et al are right to add in volatility based on the economy due to:
- people in the US much more invested and interested in shares directly - a strong correlation between the share indices and the election winner - a lot of volatility and momentum in the stock market with QE and the potential for a vaccine - Trump good at linking himself with stock market performance
It is a much better focus for Trump than the culture wars. People have made up their minds on the culture wars already, yes Trumps lot will be motivated but this time so will the anti Trumpers. The few votes that can be shifted will be on the economy.
Yes, I agree, Trump should totally be running on the economy, and I've been scratching my head a little bit over why he's been doing the Law and Order thing. One thing that occurs to me reading the reports about the Trump campaign being short on cash is that maybe he still feels like he needs to scare his base into donating more, and he'll go back to the economy in the last few weeks, which also leaves a bit more time for people's personal financial situations to get better. If the strategy is indeed "leave the swing voter persuasion until last", that's a reason to think his situation will improve in the final stretch.
As always with Trump, you can never quite tell if there's some brilliant cunning strategy at work or if it's just a confused old man reacting to what he sees on the telly.
Trump will mobilise more votes campaigning on the economy, but he will mobilise more gun-wielding supporters campaigning on law and order.
That Trump campaign: "Why risk a break down of law and order with Sleepy Joe when the economy is going great?"
Doesn't look to be enough right now, but....
This is when we compare Trump to Theresa May in 2017. Law and order did not work for May after the terrorist attacks. May: Corbyn loves terrorists. Corbyn and voters: you cut 20,000 coppers who might have stopped the terrorists.
May's problem is Trump's. Voters will say, hold on, the riots you warn about are happening while you are president right now, and you are making things worse.
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
I always gave some credence to the "shy Tory" theory in the era of John Major, because it was readily apparent that many Labour voters were willing to display posters showing their support, whereas a Tory window poster or garden stake was a rare thing indeed.
This was not true everywhere. In safe tory constituencies like Orpington even in the early 90s a Labour poster was rare. There was though a large drop throughout the 80s in the absolute number of Conservative posters being displayed in private houses.
Thank you Richard for a very good piece and thanks also for the numerous thoughtful resposes.
There's a pretty solid PB consensus here that Biden is a buy at current odds and I concur. In fact I've gone in quite heavily for me. The down side seems so low.
I don't believe the shy-Trumper theory. Most of those I've met are pretty noisy. Perhaps they've got quieter but it's a non-evidence based theory so file in the round cabinet.
The economy is a different matter. If he can keep it going until election day he does at least have one achievement to crow about, even if it is down to reckless mismanagement.
BLM may be helping him too, but the evidence is equivocal and Biden appears to be playing this one right. Trump's approach seems designed to fire up a base that is already fired up. It doesn't extend it. I can't see it making much difference in November.
That leaves 'the debates'. Experience suggests they are rarely game changers and there is no particularly reason to think they will play well for him. They may even play badly. Biden did ok in the Dem debates. Trump is out of practice and some of his recent live performances have been a bit odd.
Seven points behind in the National polls Trump really needs a game changer. Biden can pretty much run down the clock. That is what I think will happen. A polarised electorate seems to have made its mind up. The game isn't going to change.
I expect Trump to announce, in the last week or last day(s), a covid vaccine rollout.
The claim only has to last until the votes are cast, after all. Give Trump believers a reason to turn out and rationalise their vote. And afterwards (or, if he did it a bit too soon and it was unmistakeably not going to happen):
”The DEMOCRAT-controlled scientists are blocking your SAFETY. It could be all over but they’re INSISTING on POINTLESS extra tests! SLEEPY JOE and PHONY KAMALA are playing politics with your Lives! And they enjoy MUZZLING you and taking away your AMERICAN FREEDOMS! Sad!”
I expect this too. I can even see people queuing and being vaccinated in the week before the election (so an announcement about mid-October). It takes months before a vaccine can be seen as ineffective, by which time the catering for the inauguration is being finalised.
It has just occured to me that this is another reason why Trump hates postal voting. Any attempt to manipulate events in the last week before the election has much less effect, because the time at which the voters place their cross is spread out over weeks.
I really hope both the scientists and the drugs companies involved will resist any temptation or pressure to shortcircuit the trials.
The antivax movement is a major threat to public health and the drug companies will not want to give them a rocket boost by being seen to risk health with an untested drug I hope.
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
Not supporting him also probably has that effect in hardcore Trump circles. There is a definite defiant circle-the-wagonslaager sense in the Trump camp.
My guess is that this mostly affects safe states either way. If you live in Wisconsin, it won't be hard to find people who agree with your preference, whatever it is.
Even somewhere like Seattle or Boston, Clinton only got 62% so about one in three people youd meet would be Trumpers. Everywhere it will be easy to find people who agree with you.
Big cities in the USA are massively, overwhemingly Democrat -
Called my GP on Thursday about persistent stomach. Called into surgery that afternoon and bloods taken, finger up the arse and booked into hospital for colonoscopy. Hospital confirms appointment for this Saturday afternoon, going for swab test tomorrow and self-isolating this week. So, assuming all happens as planned, NHS in this part of North Yorkshire operating OK.
Thanks for the comments. A couple of observations on points people have raised:
1. The time factor isn't the difference between the 538 and Economist models. Both of them (and I think the others too) factor in the historically-observed ranges of movement between polling today and the vote-shares in the actual election. So all models should narrow down their probability distributions as the election approaches.
2. Of course it is possible that 538's headline 28% chance of a Trump victory is better than the Economist's 16% for the wrong reason: maybe the probability distribution should be flatter in the centre and then fall more rapidly away to avoid assigning too much probability to the extremes. There's no objective way of knowing, but intuitively that sounds plausible: maybe Trump has a better chance of getting a small shift in his favour than the Economist model shows, but less of a chance of a big shift than Nate Silver suggests. With a polarised electorate, that would seem reasonable.
3. What slightly worries me about the 538 model is that they seem to have looked at what their model was showing them, and thought: 'Hmm, that looks too certain, we'd better add in some more uncertainty'. See this Twitter thread which becomes an amusing spat between G. Elliott Morris (nerd behind the Economist model) and Nate Silver:
4. Personally I'd prefer to see a model which is purely based on the polling and the historic distribution of errors in the polling at a given time before the election. It would then be a political judgement - explicitly subjective - for readers to decide how much and in what direction they think it might be different this time. It doesn't seem to me to make any sense to try to input into a statistical model political and economic factors which (especially this year) have never been seen before in any election. (Nate Silver used to publish a 'polls-only' forecast, but the website has been dumbed down so badly this time that it has disappeared under a blizzard of cartoons apparently aimed at 5-year olds).
5. Of course it's worth noting that if any of the models is even vaguely right, bets on Biden winning and especially buying him on the spreads (using the supremacy market because it has a narrower spread) are good-value bets.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
While doing the school run this morning there was a teacher on the radio saying they'd needed 300 tests in their school due to one infection being reported.
300 for just one school? Roll that across the country and the surge is going to be incredible. Hopefully its just a temporary blip that will come back under control soon.
What's remarkable though is just how many tests we've been doing in this country, well over a million a week already. It will be interesting in hindsight to see how many are done now.
Interesting article, Richard. The 538 odds on the more extreme outcomes do seem intuitively wrong. Is there something in their model which adds in too much randomness to allow for unpredictable events ?
MASSIVE change to the 538 model today!
Up to now it has said that Biden is slightly favoured to win the election.
I posted before that I thought the "slightly" to be inconsistent with their own numbers - the 70% chance they give him - and a transparent piece of arse covering language.
Well they have listened to me. It's still 70% but the "slightly" has gone. Biden is now "favoured to win the election".
The newest development I've seen is people begin to question why the NHS is still shite at providing normal services. A friend's pregnant wife has just spent the night in hospital waiting to be seen by various experts. They are both sick with worry but no one will see them, they keep getting the same bullshit answers about COVID causing delays but the hospital is completely empty of patients.
I really don't understand what's going on now, it's never been this bad before.
As I have been saying for months on this site, trying to access the NHS whether a Surgery or a Hospital is so difficult, despite hospitals and surgeries being empty. Covid is just being used as an excuse to do nothing. People have not believed me cause they don't think it could possibly be the case. That is until they experience what is going on.
A friend who works at a GP practice tells me that they are seeing nearly no one, but if you are prepared to go private, the doctor who cannot see you on the NHS will see you immediately.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
Yes, I think it was designed to ensure larger families can see each other, but it's being misused. I think the 2 households thing is a guideline rather than hard and fast legislation as I can't see in the regulations.
Interesting article, Richard. The 538 odds on the more extreme outcomes do seem intuitively wrong. Is there something in their model which adds in too much randomness to allow for unpredictable events ?
MASSIVE change to the 538 model today!
Up to now it has said that Biden is slightly favoured to win the election.
I posted before that I thought the "slightly" to be inconsistent with their own numbers - the 70% chance they give him - and a transparent piece of arse covering language.
Well they have listened to me. It's still 70% but the "slightly" has gone. Biden is now "favoured to win the election".
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
When you are wheeled into A&E with a broken something the NHS is indeed fantastic.
Just about anything else, including aftercare once they've patched you up, initial GP diagnoses, complex problems requiring MDT input, liaison between departments, perish the thought liaison between different health groups, follow up once they've discharged you....all shit for far too much of the time.
When I have been visiting my mother in hospital over the past few years I heard time and again the same complaints from other visitors. PALS must be the most overworked dept in most hospitals.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Silver's model takes time into account, it should start to firm up for Biden (If the polling remains where it is) as the election approaches. In 2016 there was a latish swing to Trump which yielded his 28 or so % chance with 538. Of course if the polling moves that will move other models more.
So commonsense would say that if nothing changes after the conventions that should have moved the uncertainty down a lot, but apparently there was some good economic data, and that increases the gap between observed reality and hypothesised "fundamentals"...
I think Silver et al are right to add in volatility based on the economy due to:
- people in the US much more invested and interested in shares directly - a strong correlation between the share indices and the election winner - a lot of volatility and momentum in the stock market with QE and the potential for a vaccine - Trump good at linking himself with stock market performance
It is a much better focus for Trump than the culture wars. People have made up their minds on the culture wars already, yes Trumps lot will be motivated but this time so will the anti Trumpers. The few votes that can be shifted will be on the economy.
Yes, I agree, Trump should totally be running on the economy, and I've been scratching my head a little bit over why he's been doing the Law and Order thing. One thing that occurs to me reading the reports about the Trump campaign being short on cash is that maybe he still feels like he needs to scare his base into donating more, and he'll go back to the economy in the last few weeks, which also leaves a bit more time for people's personal financial situations to get better. If the strategy is indeed "leave the swing voter persuasion until last", that's a reason to think his situation will improve in the final stretch.
As always with Trump, you can never quite tell if there's some brilliant cunning strategy at work or if it's just a confused old man reacting to what he sees on the telly.
Trump will mobilise more votes campaigning on the economy, but he will mobilise more gun-wielding supporters campaigning on law and order.
That Trump campaign: "Why risk a break down of law and order with Sleepy Joe when the economy is going great?"
Doesn't look to be enough right now, but....
This is when we compare Trump to Theresa May in 2017. Law and order did not work for May after the terrorist attacks. May: Corbyn loves terrorists. Corbyn and voters: you cut 20,000 coppers who might have stopped the terrorists.
May's problem is Trump's. Voters will say, hold on, the riots you warn about are happening while you are president right now, and you are making things worse.
My son has just telephoned me to say his daughter (8) has a cold and loss of taste and she has to take a covid test. The nearest available testing centre is in Oldham (of all places) as no availability here in North Wales.
He is to try again for a local test but her school has told them to isolate including her brother (6) who goes to the same school and is fine. While his partner is fine working from home he is in a senior position in IT in his school and is key worker for the school.
As I said last night my wife and I have already gone back into semi lockdown with real worries over the impact of covid due to our ages and underlying health conditions. It seems now that the visits by our grandchildren will be curtailed considerably but we do count our blessings as we are able to isolate in comfort
However, this raises questions for everyone as to just how the country will manage with tens of thousands of children catching seasonal colds and placed into immediate isolation pending testing and along with their family group.
I do not think any government, opposition or indeed a GNU, really has the ability to address this potential catastrophic effect on our children's education, the health implications of more covid cases and the inevitable further delays in critical treatments including of course cancer, and sustained economic damage
I hope I am wrong but this has all the hallmarks of a crisis the likes of which we have not seen since WW2
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
Not supporting him also probably has that effect in hardcore Trump circles. There is a definite defiant circle-the-wagonslaager sense in the Trump camp.
My guess is that this mostly affects safe states either way. If you live in Wisconsin, it won't be hard to find people who agree with your preference, whatever it is.
Even somewhere like Seattle or Boston, Clinton only got 62% so about one in three people youd meet would be Trumpers. Everywhere it will be easy to find people who agree with you.
Big cities in the USA are massively, overwhemingly Democrat -
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
I always gave some credence to the "shy Tory" theory in the era of John Major, because it was readily apparent that many Labour voters were willing to display posters showing their support, whereas a Tory window poster or garden stake was a rare thing indeed.
By contrast to the UK Conservatives in that era, in the US the Trump supporters now seem ready to shout their support for him from the rooftops. More likely there are some Democrats who are reluctant to openly express their support for Biden because they feel intimidated.
I also expect the Biden support to firm up on polling day when people who want to show their support for a Green agenda in polls have enough sense to realise that virtue signalling doesn't excuse them from voting directly for the candidate with a hope of defeating the antichrist.
The supporters of that point to the last election when a number of pollsters asked "who do you think your neighbour will vote for?" or "who do you think will win?" and, whereas Clinton would lead the polling, Trump was seen as the winner or whom the neighbours were voting for. The thesis is that it was more acceptable to think your neighbour would vote for him rather than admit it yourself.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
We are back to the rules vs the guidelines vs the regulations vs the law.
Gatherings over 30 are currently illegal unless they adhere to a set of extra measures.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
Crikey.
Proper triage before getting a test essential. I suspect the positive test rate for those children is stunningly low.
Schools are saying if anyone in a "bubble" gets infected the whole bubble needs testing.
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
In my son's school, each bubble is a year group of 160 kids. It is simply impossible to isolate them into groups smaller than this while keeping all the kids at school.
I particularly like the comment that "A philosopher might ask whether a probability for a one-off unrepeatable event means anything at all, since it is inherently impossible to falsify " which makes a point that is so often missed by many people (@Wulfrun_Phil I'm looking at you!)
Any probability less than 1 is inherently impossible to falsify. I think you have just proved there is no such thing as betting.
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
Not supporting him also probably has that effect in hardcore Trump circles. There is a definite defiant circle-the-wagonslaager sense in the Trump camp.
My guess is that this mostly affects safe states either way. If you live in Wisconsin, it won't be hard to find people who agree with your preference, whatever it is.
Even somewhere like Seattle or Boston, Clinton only got 62% so about one in three people youd meet would be Trumpers. Everywhere it will be easy to find people who agree with you.
Big cities in the USA are massively, overwhemingly Democrat -
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
Crikey.
Proper triage before getting a test essential. I suspect the positive test rate for those children is stunningly low.
Schools are saying if anyone in a "bubble" gets infected the whole bubble needs testing.
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
I think transmission risk could be minimised via having children that are frequently together (Share classes) sit closer together and those that share say one class being on average further apart. Could be set as a linear programming exercise for year 12s to solve for their school.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I have long been in favour of the govt, and I'm not sure if Boris doing it would make it worse or better, standing up and saying:
Please bear with us on the guidelines. They have been designed to maximise returning to some kind of normal, while retaining protections for those at risk and for society as a whole and NHS capacity. Some may not appear to make sense but please rest assured that we have been in close discussion with scientists, economists, business groups and unions to ensure that we are picking our path through what is a very challenging environment.
Of course that would require a) honesty; and b) credibility. Neither of which are the govt's strong suits.
I expect Trump to announce, in the last week or last day(s), a covid vaccine rollout.
The claim only has to last until the votes are cast, after all. Give Trump believers a reason to turn out and rationalise their vote. And afterwards (or, if he did it a bit too soon and it was unmistakeably not going to happen):
”The DEMOCRAT-controlled scientists are blocking your SAFETY. It could be all over but they’re INSISTING on POINTLESS extra tests! SLEEPY JOE and PHONY KAMALA are playing politics with your Lives! And they enjoy MUZZLING you and taking away your AMERICAN FREEDOMS! Sad!”
I expect this too. I can even see people queuing and being vaccinated in the week before the election (so an announcement about mid-October). It takes months before a vaccine can be seen as ineffective, by which time the catering for the inauguration is being finalised.
It has just occured to me that this is another reason why Trump hates postal voting. Any attempt to manipulate events in the last week before the election has much less effect, because the time at which the voters place their cross is spread out over weeks.
I really hope both the scientists and the drugs companies involved will resist any temptation or pressure to shortcircuit the trials.
The antivax movement is a major threat to public health and the drug companies will not want to give them a rocket boost by being seen to risk health with an untested drug I hope.
There is a genuine debate aside from the political one, though. It’s quite likely that one or more of the vaccines will demonstrate unequivocal effectiveness well before the end of the year (very probably not before November 4th, but not impossible). The safety aspect of the vaccines, however, is supposedly to be determined by running the trials for a full twelve months. Given the dangers of COVID, a decision will have to be made about going ahead with vaccine much earlier than that. The decision should be made by those who can assess the potential costs and benefits (and legally, by the FDA). Trump’s interventions have muddied the waters considerably.
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
Not supporting him also probably has that effect in hardcore Trump circles. There is a definite defiant circle-the-wagonslaager sense in the Trump camp.
My guess is that this mostly affects safe states either way. If you live in Wisconsin, it won't be hard to find people who agree with your preference, whatever it is.
Even somewhere like Seattle or Boston, Clinton only got 62% so about one in three people youd meet would be Trumpers. Everywhere it will be easy to find people who agree with you.
Big cities in the USA are massively, overwhemingly Democrat -
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I simply don't understand why pubs, restaurants and the like haven't been closed again, given the evident risks of opening the schools / universities / offices. They are not essential and could possibly be drip-fed financial sustenance by the government while they are closed. Instead, we are running a real risk of losing control of Covid and having to shut everything down again.
Interesting header @Richard_Nabavi thank you. I used to work with Monte Carlo simulations using a software package called Crystal Ball and from that direct experience I know that the user can get the answer they want using ostensibly tiny little tweaks which are almost impossible to audit unless the auditor really knows what they're doing. The subjectivity is massive. So, although I like to track the models and they add value, I am not particularly guided by them. I'm more guided by the polls and the overall insight - now supported by most objective data - that the great nation of America cannot and will not elect an individual so palpably unfit for the presidency to a second term. You can lay that individual, Donald Trump, right now at 2.3 and it is the bet of a lifetime. Do not do your own research and do not remember that bets can lose as well as win. Just trust me.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
Crikey.
Proper triage before getting a test essential. I suspect the positive test rate for those children is stunningly low.
Schools are saying if anyone in a "bubble" gets infected the whole bubble needs testing.
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
I think transmission risk could be minimised via having children that are frequently together (Share classes) sit closer together and those that share say one class being on average further apart. Could be set as a linear programming exercise for year 12s to solve for their school.
What about a family that has three children at the same school all in different years?
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
Not supporting him also probably has that effect in hardcore Trump circles. There is a definite defiant circle-the-wagonslaager sense in the Trump camp.
My guess is that this mostly affects safe states either way. If you live in Wisconsin, it won't be hard to find people who agree with your preference, whatever it is.
Even somewhere like Seattle or Boston, Clinton only got 62% so about one in three people youd meet would be Trumpers. Everywhere it will be easy to find people who agree with you.
Big cities in the USA are massively, overwhemingly Democrat -
Yes these include suburbs will be more split than the cities proper. Elections are won and lost in the suburbs still holds.
In which case I think my point still holds, most people in Boston central will know plenty of people in the suburbs, not just in their immediate locality, at least thats how it works in London.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I simply don't understand why pubs, restaurants and the like haven't been closed again, given the evident risks of opening the schools / universities / offices. They are not essential and could possibly be drip-fed financial sustenance by the government while they are closed. Instead, we are running a real risk of losing control of Covid and having to shut everything down again.
What is happening to hospital admissions/spare capacity?
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I simply don't understand why pubs, restaurants and the like haven't been closed again, given the evident risks of opening the schools / universities / offices. They are not essential and could possibly be drip-fed financial sustenance by the government while they are closed. Instead, we are running a real risk of losing control of the Covid and having to shut everything down again.
If people followed the rules things would be fine, they don’t, so this is what happens.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I have long been in favour of the govt, and I'm not sure if Boris doing it would make it worse or better, standing up and saying:
Please bear with us on the guidelines. They have been designed to maximise returning to some kind of normal, while retaining protections for those at risk and for society as a whole and NHS capacity. Some may not appear to make sense but please rest assured that we have been in close discussion with scientists, economists, business groups and unions to ensure that we are picking our path through what is a very challenging environment.
Of course that would require a) honesty; and b) credibility. Neither of which are the govt's strong suits.
That message would get swallowed up in the media swash. Let's not forget that the government has been consistently warning people that places may be added and removed from the quarantine list at short notice, but each week you still get the news interviewing angry Britons claiming they were given no notice their holiday destinations were being taken off the list.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
Crikey.
Proper triage before getting a test essential. I suspect the positive test rate for those children is stunningly low.
Schools are saying if anyone in a "bubble" gets infected the whole bubble needs testing.
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
I think transmission risk could be minimised via having children that are frequently together (Share classes) sit closer together and those that share say one class being on average further apart. Could be set as a linear programming exercise for year 12s to solve for their school.
What about a family that has three children at the same school all in different years?
Minimised. If the children are in different year groups they'll be in different classes, so it doesn't affect this particular optimal desk allocation problem which is solvable.
Interesting article, Richard. The 538 odds on the more extreme outcomes do seem intuitively wrong. Is there something in their model which adds in too much randomness to allow for unpredictable events ?
MASSIVE change to the 538 model today!
Up to now it has said that Biden is slightly favoured to win the election.
I posted before that I thought the "slightly" to be inconsistent with their own numbers - the 70% chance they give him - and a transparent piece of arse covering language.
Well they have listened to me. It's still 70% but the "slightly" has gone. Biden is now "favoured to win the election".
Which I agree with. He is.
Next question. When will they insert a "clearly"?
85% is clearly I think.
Ah right. Thanks. Let's hope it gets there so we can confirm that.
Two questions down from Theresa May is Iain Duncan Smith who served in Northern Ireland and who has recently become less enamoured of the WA now he's had time to read it. Don't waste all your popcorn on one question.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I have long been in favour of the govt, and I'm not sure if Boris doing it would make it worse or better, standing up and saying:
Please bear with us on the guidelines. They have been designed to maximise returning to some kind of normal, while retaining protections for those at risk and for society as a whole and NHS capacity. Some may not appear to make sense but please rest assured that we have been in close discussion with scientists, economists, business groups and unions to ensure that we are picking our path through what is a very challenging environment.
Of course that would require a) honesty; and b) credibility. Neither of which are the govt's strong suits.
That message would get swallowed up in the media swash. Let's not forget that the government has been consistently warning people that places may be added and removed from the quarantine list at short notice, but each week you still get the news interviewing angry Britons claiming they were given no notice their holiday destinations were being taken off the list.
I find it odd that a couple of days' notice is given that countries are to go on the quarantine list, thus prompting a mass panic to get back to the UK in which social distancing goes out the window. Additions to the quarantine list should be with immediate effect; people know they are taking a risk of quarantine when they travel in the first place. That would be more effective and less stressful all round.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
Crikey.
Proper triage before getting a test essential. I suspect the positive test rate for those children is stunningly low.
Schools are saying if anyone in a "bubble" gets infected the whole bubble needs testing.
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
In my son's school, each bubble is a year group of 160 kids. It is simply impossible to isolate them into groups smaller than this while keeping all the kids at school.
For my two at secondary the bubble is 240 kids each. Most of those kids will have siblings in other years or other schools. The reality is that once schools go back the disease will soon become endemic, it is completely unavoidable, regardless of people following "the rules" (as if anyone knows what those are anymore) or not. I assumed that the government had figured this out, but as usual it appears they are completely at sea.
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
Crikey.
Proper triage before getting a test essential. I suspect the positive test rate for those children is stunningly low.
Schools are saying if anyone in a "bubble" gets infected the whole bubble needs testing.
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
I think transmission risk could be minimised via having children that are frequently together (Share classes) sit closer together and those that share say one class being on average further apart. Could be set as a linear programming exercise for year 12s to solve for their school.
What about a family that has three children at the same school all in different years?
Minimised. If the children are in different year groups they'll be in different classes, so it doesn't affect this particular optimal desk allocation problem which is solvable.
True. But there is cross-contamination of year groups. So where does that leave the year group bubbles?
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I simply don't understand why pubs, restaurants and the like haven't been closed again, given the evident risks of opening the schools / universities / offices. They are not essential and could possibly be drip-fed financial sustenance by the government while they are closed. Instead, we are running a real risk of losing control of Covid and having to shut everything down again.
What is happening to hospital admissions/spare capacity?
Exactly, it really doesn't matter if people are catching Covid but hospital admissions are not rising.
In terms of schools, children need to be at school.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
I thought the rule was officially still two households!
I'm pretty sure the message is: "We must be cautious and follow restrictions, avoid travelling where possible while still going in to work and get back to the office, and maintain maximum social distancing to minimise spread while eating out in restaurants and pubs whenever possible, get back to our old way of life and also quarantine if you've had a holiday in certain locations (we'll tell you after you've got there). And you can meet up with as many people as you like while getting drunk in a pub but there's some kind of number of maximum people you can meet up with at home."
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
Not supporting him also probably has that effect in hardcore Trump circles. There is a definite defiant circle-the-wagonslaager sense in the Trump camp.
My guess is that this mostly affects safe states either way. If you live in Wisconsin, it won't be hard to find people who agree with your preference, whatever it is.
Even somewhere like Seattle or Boston, Clinton only got 62% so about one in three people youd meet would be Trumpers. Everywhere it will be easy to find people who agree with you.
Big cities in the USA are massively, overwhemingly Democrat -
Just tried again to get a COVID test. No home tests, no drive-throughs, no walk-throughs.
Waste of time.
But it's world beating? Your experience is fake news, obviously.
Getting worse in Greater Manchester
At around 7pm on Monday, the M.E.N tried to book a test using a number of postcodes from the remaining six boroughs in Greater Manchester.
For a variety of different postcodes in Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Tameside, Salford and Stockport the website would not load when trying to book a test.
No matter which options we selected, it was not possible to book a test using any postcode in these boroughs.
We tried refreshing the page, but no tests were showing as available.
In a statement, a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said that there is currently 'a high demand for tests'.
They said areas with outbreaks are being made a priority.
The statement read: “There is a high demand for tests and to help stop the spread of the virus we are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including those where there is an outbreak, as well as prioritising at-risk groups.
“We have the capacity to test for coronavirus at an unprecedented scale.
Lucky Greater Manchester isn't a relative hotspot.
Number of tests per week performed for children aged 2-17 in Scotland
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
Crikey.
Proper triage before getting a test essential. I suspect the positive test rate for those children is stunningly low.
Schools are saying if anyone in a "bubble" gets infected the whole bubble needs testing.
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
I think transmission risk could be minimised via having children that are frequently together (Share classes) sit closer together and those that share say one class being on average further apart. Could be set as a linear programming exercise for year 12s to solve for their school.
What about a family that has three children at the same school all in different years?
Minimised. If the children are in different year groups they'll be in different classes, so it doesn't affect this particular optimal desk allocation problem which is solvable.
True. But there is cross-contamination of year groups. So where does that leave the year group bubbles?
The year group bubble concept is pure displacement activity, designed to give the impression that the school is "doing something". The reality is that kids interact with children in different year groups much more outside of school (especially at home) than at school anyway, and in secondary the year groups tend to be huge (240 kids for ours). Face it, with schools back we are going to see a new wave of infections. Policy should focus on shielding the vulnerable and better treatment for the sick. If we take the view that closing schools is the greater of the two evils (which it may be) then we need to accept the consequences instead of pretending that the impact on transmission can be contained. It can't.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I simply don't understand why pubs, restaurants and the like haven't been closed again, given the evident risks of opening the schools / universities / offices. They are not essential and could possibly be drip-fed financial sustenance by the government while they are closed. Instead, we are running a real risk of losing control of Covid and having to shut everything down again.
What is happening to hospital admissions/spare capacity?
Exactly, it really doesn't matter if people are catching Covid but hospital admissions are not rising.
In terms of schools, children need to be at school.
Hospital admissions may not be rising now, but they most surely will if infections are allowed to continue rising. You've got to stay ahead of the curve if you want to keep disaster at bay.
Yes, I agree that children need to be at school. But then we need to close other areas of life in order to have a chance of keeping them at school without Covid running away again. It's pretty straightforward arithmetic. Once infections are (hopefully!) falling again, we can tentatively reopen pubs, etc.
Is there a view about the shy Trumper factor? Like people who were embarrassed to say they supported John Major I can imagine that open support of The Donald is social pariah making amongst many groups.
Not supporting him also probably has that effect in hardcore Trump circles. There is a definite defiant circle-the-wagonslaager sense in the Trump camp.
My guess is that this mostly affects safe states either way. If you live in Wisconsin, it won't be hard to find people who agree with your preference, whatever it is.
Even somewhere like Seattle or Boston, Clinton only got 62% so about one in three people youd meet would be Trumpers. Everywhere it will be easy to find people who agree with you.
Big cities in the USA are massively, overwhemingly Democrat -
Add in unregistered/can't vote to take that down to say 70% or so, so you'll have say ~56% of people voting Democrat and perhaps just 6% voting GOP.
You can lay Trump to win popular vote at 5.8 with BF. Does anyone think that this bet could possible lose?
It'd require a ~4% swing from now till election day, or the same as a polling error on election day. It could lose but Trump to win the PV should probably be longer than 5.8
Coronavirus: Up to £3.5bn furlough claims fraudulent or paid in error - HMRC is the headline.
Fraud or error? HMG has been conflating the two for years with benefits claims. But let us not overlook the third possibilty, that HMG is pulling numbers out of thin air.
Ah, here we are: Speaking to MPs on Monday, HMRC's permanent secretary Jim Harra said: "We have made an assumption for the purposes of our planning that the error and fraud rate in this scheme could be between 5% and 10%.
I find it odd that a couple of days' notice is given that countries are to go on the quarantine list, thus prompting a mass panic to get back to the UK in which social distancing goes out the window. Additions to the quarantine list should be with immediate effect; people know they are taking a risk of quarantine when they travel in the first place. That would be more effective and less stressful all round.
It would totally decimate the travel industry. No one would dare go abroad.
You could argue that, in Covid terms, that is a good thing, but with the economy slowing shredding and aviation already on its knees, the govt is simply not going to do it.
Why are we allowed 30 people in a house at the moment anyway? The limit for weddings is also 30 people but that would be in a typically much greater space with professional staff who can set up a covid secure environment. It is obvious the limit for being in a house should be less than a wedding.
I had no idea we were allowed 30 people in a house and doubt many other people did either so changing the limit probably wont have that much impact.
Greater than 30 people meeting in one house is illegal but the guidelines also say: "It remains the case that you should not socialise indoors in groups of more than two households (anyone in your support bubble counts as one household) – this includes when dining out or going to the pub"
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
So it is against the guidelines for 3 work colleagues working from home to have a business meeting in a restaurant that lasts 90 mins? Yet the government insists its safe for them to all work in the same office for 40 hours a week.
Yes, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Or people will ignore the guidelines as they dont make sense.
I simply don't understand why pubs, restaurants and the like haven't been closed again, given the evident risks of opening the schools / universities / offices. They are not essential and could possibly be drip-fed financial sustenance by the government while they are closed. Instead, we are running a real risk of losing control of Covid and having to shut everything down again.
What is happening to hospital admissions/spare capacity?
Exactly, it really doesn't matter if people are catching Covid but hospital admissions are not rising.
In terms of schools, children need to be at school.
Hospital admissions may not be rising now, but they most surely will if infections are allowed to continue rising. You've got to stay ahead of the curve if you want to keep disaster at bay.
Yes, I agree that children need to be at school. But then we need to close other areas of life in order to have a chance of keeping them at school without Covid running away again. It's pretty straightforward arithmetic. Once infections are (hopefully!) falling again, we can tentatively reopen pubs, etc.
I dont think that is neccesarily the case. The test we have now is very very good at finding Covid, even if you have a tiny bit in you and you are not infectious at all.
Why? Its just a provision for fraud and error? There was bound to be some and a lot of it will be reclaimed.
Yes. I'm no supporter of the government, but a degree of fraud is to be expected as a consequence of making the financial help straightforward to claim. I wouldn't fault the government for that - speed and implicity was essential.
Two questions down from Theresa May is Iain Duncan Smith who served in Northern Ireland and who has recently become less enamoured of the WA now he's had time to read it. Don't waste all your popcorn on one question.
I'm waiting for the day, at some point along the line, that the Tory whip is withdrawn from T. May.
Two questions down from Theresa May is Iain Duncan Smith who served in Northern Ireland and who has recently become less enamoured of the WA now he's had time to read it. Don't waste all your popcorn on one question.
I'm waiting for the day, at some point along the line, that the Tory whip is withdrawn from T. May.
That'll be popcorn.
I disagree. That will be the point at which the govt publicly admits it is no longer a Conservative govt.
Not predictable -- that is just the prediction. The actual figure could be anything but the headline writer got a bit excited.
Ok. Guess so. But what I mean is, it was imo to be expected that a non trivial proportion of the total furlough costs - 5% say - would be accounted for by successful fraudulent or borderline fraudulent claims. A figure like that does not, would not, unduly surprise me.
I particularly like the comment that "A philosopher might ask whether a probability for a one-off unrepeatable event means anything at all, since it is inherently impossible to falsify " which makes a point that is so often missed by many people (@Wulfrun_Phil I'm looking at you!)
You seem to miss the point that US presidential elections are not one-off unrepeatable events. They recur every four years, often with the same candidate seeking re-election as now. As such I think you can draw on the past track record of forecasters to inform the future, and 538's record was the most accurate (or if you prefer the least inaccurate) in 2016 in that at least they gave Trump an outside but fighting chance when others had written him off. 538 also called every state correctly in 2012. So personally I set a lot of store by Silver's track record.
Comments
By contrast to the UK Conservatives in that era, in the US the Trump supporters now seem ready to shout their support for him from the rooftops. More likely there are some Democrats who are reluctant to openly express their support for Biden because they feel intimidated.
I also expect the Biden support to firm up on polling day when people who want to show their support for a Green agenda in polls have enough sense to realise that virtue signalling doesn't excuse them from voting directly for the candidate with a hope of defeating the antichrist.
Perhaps I have just been lucky.
It has just occured to me that this is another reason why Trump hates postal voting. Any attempt to manipulate events in the last week before the election has much less effect, because the time at which the voters place their cross is spread out over weeks.
I think I've spotted the reason for lack of capacity.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1303249463792852993
May's problem is Trump's. Voters will say, hold on, the riots you warn about are happening while you are president right now, and you are making things worse.
And if you do not believe me, ask Boris! He knew.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/what-matters-vote-by-mail-presidential-election-2020/index.html
The antivax movement is a major threat to public health and the drug companies will not want to give them a rocket boost by being seen to risk health with an untested drug I hope.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/massachusetts
Boston
Clinton 221,093 (85.3%)
Trump 38,087 (14.7%)
https://crosscut.com/2016/11/donald-trump-washington-working-class-election-2016
Seattle Clinton + 80%.
So more like 1 in 7 people in Boston will be a Trumper and 1 in 10 in Seattle. The rural-urban polarisation of the USA is quite something.
17-Jul-20 - 8,823
24-Jul-20 - 8,891
31-Jul-20 - 8,946
07-Aug-20 - 8,945
14-Aug-20 - 9,392
21-Aug-20 - 9,631
28-Aug-20 - 9,032
Perhaps the heat theory was correct - good to see we're back to not much higher than the end of July
1. The time factor isn't the difference between the 538 and Economist models. Both of them (and I think the others too) factor in the historically-observed ranges of movement between polling today and the vote-shares in the actual election. So all models should narrow down their probability distributions as the election approaches.
2. Of course it is possible that 538's headline 28% chance of a Trump victory is better than the Economist's 16% for the wrong reason: maybe the probability distribution should be flatter in the centre and then fall more rapidly away to avoid assigning too much probability to the extremes. There's no objective way of knowing, but intuitively that sounds plausible: maybe Trump has a better chance of getting a small shift in his favour than the Economist model shows, but less of a chance of a big shift than Nate Silver suggests. With a polarised electorate, that would seem reasonable.
3. What slightly worries me about the 538 model is that they seem to have looked at what their model was showing them, and thought: 'Hmm, that looks too certain, we'd better add in some more uncertainty'. See this Twitter thread which becomes an amusing spat between G. Elliott Morris (nerd behind the Economist model) and Nate Silver:
https://twitter.com/nataliemj10/status/1293591122279837705
4. Personally I'd prefer to see a model which is purely based on the polling and the historic distribution of errors in the polling at a given time before the election. It would then be a political judgement - explicitly subjective - for readers to decide how much and in what direction they think it might be different this time. It doesn't seem to me to make any sense to try to input into a statistical model political and economic factors which (especially this year) have never been seen before in any election. (Nate Silver used to publish a 'polls-only' forecast, but the website has been dumbed down so badly this time that it has disappeared under a blizzard of cartoons apparently aimed at 5-year olds).
5. Of course it's worth noting that if any of the models is even vaguely right, bets on Biden winning and especially buying him on the spreads (using the supremacy market because it has a narrower spread) are good-value bets.
So up to 30 people but only from two households. I can't think there are many 15+ person households
300 for just one school? Roll that across the country and the surge is going to be incredible. Hopefully its just a temporary blip that will come back under control soon.
What's remarkable though is just how many tests we've been doing in this country, well over a million a week already. It will be interesting in hindsight to see how many are done now.
Up to now it has said that Biden is slightly favoured to win the election.
I posted before that I thought the "slightly" to be inconsistent with their own numbers - the 70% chance they give him - and a transparent piece of arse covering language.
Well they have listened to me. It's still 70% but the "slightly" has gone. Biden is now "favoured to win the election".
Which I agree with. He is.
Next question. When will they insert a "clearly"?
Private practice, it seems, is less affected....
Just about anything else, including aftercare once they've patched you up, initial GP diagnoses, complex problems requiring MDT input, liaison between departments, perish the thought liaison between different health groups, follow up once they've discharged you....all shit for far too much of the time.
When I have been visiting my mother in hospital over the past few years I heard time and again the same complaints from other visitors. PALS must be the most overworked dept in most hospitals.
"Who runs Britain?" . . . "Not you."
He is to try again for a local test but her school has told them to isolate including her brother (6) who goes to the same school and is fine. While his partner is fine working from home he is in a senior position in IT in his school and is key worker for the school.
As I said last night my wife and I have already gone back into semi lockdown with real worries over the impact of covid due to our ages and underlying health conditions. It seems now that the visits by our grandchildren will be curtailed considerably but we do count our blessings as we are able to isolate in comfort
However, this raises questions for everyone as to just how the country will manage with tens of thousands of children catching seasonal colds and placed into immediate isolation pending testing and along with their family group.
I do not think any government, opposition or indeed a GNU, really has the ability to address this potential catastrophic effect on our children's education, the health implications of more covid cases and the inevitable further delays in critical treatments including of course cancer, and sustained economic damage
I hope I am wrong but this has all the hallmarks of a crisis the likes of which we have not seen since WW2
Keep safe everyone
Are we still doing these hypothetical "so you can do x, but not y" scenarios all this time later?
Until we are simply back to normal with no restrictions at all there will always be oddities.
Add in unregistered/can't vote to take that down to say 70% or so, so you'll have say ~56% of people voting Democrat and perhaps just 6% voting GOP.
Trump's polling average will improve. In the 538 polling average it will go from 43% to 46%.
Biden will not drop below 50.
Steps are reforming and are performing in Manchester in 2021
https://themanc.com/trending/steps-are-reforming-and-theyre-coming-to-manchester-in-2021/
Given some of these bubbles can be a hundred kids . . .
Gatherings over 30 are currently illegal unless they adhere to a set of extra measures.
The question then becomes how much under-polled groups turn out on election day.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-01/mapping-how-america-s-metros-voted-in-the-2016-election
Presumably the metro areas are much wider?
Please bear with us on the guidelines. They have been designed to maximise returning to some kind of normal, while retaining protections for those at risk and for society as a whole and NHS capacity. Some may not appear to make sense but please rest assured that we have been in close discussion with scientists, economists, business groups and unions to ensure that we are picking our path through what is a very challenging environment.
Of course that would require a) honesty; and b) credibility. Neither of which are the govt's strong suits.
It’s quite likely that one or more of the vaccines will demonstrate unequivocal effectiveness well before the end of the year (very probably not before November 4th, but not impossible). The safety aspect of the vaccines, however, is supposedly to be determined by running the trials for a full twelve months.
Given the dangers of COVID, a decision will have to be made about going ahead with vaccine much earlier than that. The decision should be made by those who can assess the potential costs and benefits (and legally, by the FDA). Trump’s interventions have muddied the waters considerably.
12-17 year olds about half the positive rate of the general population
3% of those tests were Scottish school children.
English schools are back now.
Crikey indeed. And that isn't counting the teachers or parents either.
But while that's an incredible amount its not insurmountable, hopefully a week or two can see it settle down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54066815
In terms of schools, children need to be at school.
"Why do people ever say it's unclear?"
Yes, I agree that children need to be at school. But then we need to close other areas of life in order to have a chance of keeping them at school without Covid running away again. It's pretty straightforward arithmetic. Once infections are (hopefully!) falling again, we can tentatively reopen pubs, etc.
Fraud or error? HMG has been conflating the two for years with benefits claims. But let us not overlook the third possibilty, that HMG is pulling numbers out of thin air.
Ah, here we are: Speaking to MPs on Monday, HMRC's permanent secretary Jim Harra said: "We have made an assumption for the purposes of our planning that the error and fraud rate in this scheme could be between 5% and 10%.
In other words, the headline fraud figure is not actual fraud, or innocent error, but just a planning assumption.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54066815
You could argue that, in Covid terms, that is a good thing, but with the economy slowing shredding and aviation already on its knees, the govt is simply not going to do it.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1303235825057046528?s=20
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1303245474439352320?s=20
That'll be popcorn.