Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
My thanks, but I doubt it will end anything. When people are that desperate to believe something, they’ll find a way; facts or reality don’t stop them. Anything from making things up, to quibbling about something irrelevant, to simply ignoring it and waiting a short while before blaring it out again.
It all boils down to “I want this disruption to not be a thing any more, and I don’t want to be scared.”
My sense is that fearfulness is typically greater in those who advocate for tight national lockdowns, rather than those who advocate for alternative strategies such as risk segmentation.
Not sure it is fear per se. Precious little attention has been paid to the "fight, flight, feign, freeze" response. These are deeply embedded personal neural pathways. Difficult to short circuit by logic or policy.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
My thanks, but I doubt it will end anything. When people are that desperate to believe something, they’ll find a way; facts or reality don’t stop them. Anything from making things up, to quibbling about something irrelevant, to simply ignoring it and waiting a short while before blaring it out again.
It all boils down to “I want this disruption to not be a thing any more, and I don’t want to be scared.”
Not from me. I have been one of those banging on about Sweden on here, because I don't feel our government nor science advisors is paying any/enough attention to the SW strategy. And not because I want it all to just go away. Because we have/are enduring the worst restrictions of individual freedom outside wartime than have been seen in at least living memory and because we are self-destructing our economy.
Their death rate is higher than near neighbours because like us they f*cked up their care home response.
It's no good saying everyone with half a brain would ignore Ferguson's model predictions: we still have a ministerial team who are reacting to his model predictions even now when to the best of anyone's knowledge that I have seen or read no new adjustments or account has been made in the model for what actually happened.
Note: the claim of "85,000 deaths in Sweden if they follow their strategy" was directly contradictory to what was in published spreadsheets from the Imperial model.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
Sweden are going to 500 people being allowed to gather together.
We are at six. Swedish people meet, drink, hug, exercise and presumably f8ck unhindered by their government
That's all that matters. That's what's happening in Sweden. Now. That's what people will see. How can this be? How can they do this?
This is the Swedish government advice about sexual relationships.
"Our general guidelines state that people should maintain a physical distance from other people to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, particularly outside their immediate circles. Closeness, intimacy and sex promote well-being and a general good state of health. In a steady relationship, where people are already seeing each other and are close, sex is not precluded provided you or your partner/s are not showing any symptoms of illness. However, dating and casual sexual relationships with new partners put you at risk of being infected or of infecting others."
You have an idea about Sweden that is a complete fantasy. There is an argument that it would be preferable for the government to provide advice, rather than pass laws, but it seems that the people of Sweden are more prepared to follow advice, rather than insist on being forced to act by laws as in the UK.
And, compared to their peers in Norway and Finland they have paid a high price for this different approach.
It strikes me that what the Swedes have done is treat their citizens like responsible adults.
What most other governments in the West have done is treat their citizens like naughty children who cannot be trusted.
And so that's how they behave.
Maybe. Others might argue the causality was the other way round.
The point I was making is that people in Sweden are not living the life of debauched freedom that you imagine you could live were the government simply to follow their example.
They've still experienced the frustrating physical distance necessary to control the virus (in the absence of effective test, trace and isolate).
By the way, has anyone seen or heard of a single "Covid Marshall" actually being deployed? Anywhere?
30 grand a year apparently. With unemployment heading north we will soon see plenty. Marshals will either stand around in a high viz paying lip service to the job or be absolute traffic warden jobsworths. Can't see them being effective with no real powers.
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
We're asking contacts of a confirmed case to isolate for 14 days, even if they don't have symptoms, in order to control asymptomatic spread, but not then testing these people. I think a lot of them are rationalizing a failure to self-isolate on the basis that if they don't know they're infected they shouldn't have to do so.
Without the test of contacts it also means we don't know whether their contacts (the contacts of contacts) should also be isolating.
No, it's worse IMO, people who have positive test results aren't isolating properly either. We should be looking at a Chinese model of test, track, trace, separate. I (and others far more important than me) said this months ago and now the government's failure to get a proper separation policy in place for people who test positive will result in a second national lockdown and another -10% on GDP vs current forecasts, much of which we won't be able to easily recover like last time.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
Sweden are going to 500 people being allowed to gather together.
We are at six. Swedish people meet, drink, hug, exercise and presumably f8ck unhindered by their government
That's all that matters. That's what's happening in Sweden. Now. That's what people will see. How can this be? How can they do this?
This is the Swedish government advice about sexual relationships.
"Our general guidelines state that people should maintain a physical distance from other people to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, particularly outside their immediate circles. Closeness, intimacy and sex promote well-being and a general good state of health. In a steady relationship, where people are already seeing each other and are close, sex is not precluded provided you or your partner/s are not showing any symptoms of illness. However, dating and casual sexual relationships with new partners put you at risk of being infected or of infecting others."
You have an idea about Sweden that is a complete fantasy. There is an argument that it would be preferable for the government to provide advice, rather than pass laws, but it seems that the people of Sweden are more prepared to follow advice, rather than insist on being forced to act by laws as in the UK.
And, compared to their peers in Norway and Finland they have paid a high price for this different approach.
This isn't over yet. Sweden are running a marathon not a sprint as Tegnell says.
The Swedish model is predicated on not finding a vaccine for around two years, it isn't a marathon because it's highly likely that one of the 7 candidates now in PIII trials will work and a vaccine will be available to developed nations with domestic manufacturing in H1 next year. The trials of the aerosolised version of the Oxford vaccine could produce a delivery method that gives almost full immunity in a form factor that is cheap and easy to distribute, that could be ready by the middle of next year depending on how the trials go, but that has already started too.
Sweden's model is far too negative, it assumed everything will always be crap so we'll just have to live with it. On the flip side I think the NZ model of full eradication comes with a huge economic sacrifice and inability of people to live normally for far too long. Our model is just rubbish in general, frankly it doesn't seem as though we have one. The German model seems to be working best, open what is possible to open, keep the schools running, keep socialising to small groups and mainly outdoors and put in properly tough rules on isolation and quarantine. Ours are a joke.
And Sweden also failed to take into account that our treatments for covid have (and were always going to) improved hugely, so that an ill person's odds of surviving hospitalisation are several times better than they were early on.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
My thanks, but I doubt it will end anything. When people are that desperate to believe something, they’ll find a way; facts or reality don’t stop them. Anything from making things up, to quibbling about something irrelevant, to simply ignoring it and waiting a short while before blaring it out again.
It all boils down to “I want this disruption to not be a thing any more, and I don’t want to be scared.”
Indeed. Imagine that, people not wishing to live their lives in fear.
Are you feeling fearful, Contrarian?
My fear of the virus is zero.
My fear of the response to it by the government reaction is high.
By the way, has anyone seen or heard of a single "Covid Marshall" actually being deployed? Anywhere?
30 grand a year apparently. With unemployment heading north we will soon see plenty. Marshals will either stand around in a high viz paying lip service to the job or be absolute traffic warden jobsworths. Can't see them being effective with no real powers.
Interesting in the questioning then between the Scottish Nationalist and the PM that the PM pointedly and repeatedly refused to answer the question as to whether he would refuse to grant a Section 30 Order following the next Holyrood election, instead sticking to the line that it hasn't been a generation but refusing to actually answer the question.
Very different to what HYUFD says here. He's absolutely not ruling out granting a S30 order, quite appropriately really as it surely depends upon how the election goes?
No he made it clear it was a once in a generation vote so no but regardless it is for Westminster to approve a vote, not the PM alone and the Tory majority of 80 will ensure it is voted down.
Though given Boris also today said he would impose tariffs on EU imports if we went to WTO terms Brexit if he did grant an indyref2 leading to a Yes and Scotland rejoined the EU prepare for tariffs on all EU and Scottish imports to England and Wales and vice versa within a year or 2
And on the "Sweden's deaths were all because of care homes" - about 40% of Swedish deaths were of care home residents. A lower proportion than in Norway (over 60%).
That leaves Sweden's non-care-home deaths as a greater multiple of Norway's non-care-home deaths.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
Sweden are going to 500 people being allowed to gather together.
We are at six. Swedish people meet, drink, hug, exercise and presumably f8ck unhindered by their government
That's all that matters. That's what's happening in Sweden. Now. That's what people will see. How can this be? How can they do this?
This is the Swedish government advice about sexual relationships.
"Our general guidelines state that people should maintain a physical distance from other people to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, particularly outside their immediate circles. Closeness, intimacy and sex promote well-being and a general good state of health. In a steady relationship, where people are already seeing each other and are close, sex is not precluded provided you or your partner/s are not showing any symptoms of illness. However, dating and casual sexual relationships with new partners put you at risk of being infected or of infecting others."
You have an idea about Sweden that is a complete fantasy. There is an argument that it would be preferable for the government to provide advice, rather than pass laws, but it seems that the people of Sweden are more prepared to follow advice, rather than insist on being forced to act by laws as in the UK.
And, compared to their peers in Norway and Finland they have paid a high price for this different approach.
This isn't over yet. Sweden are running a marathon not a sprint as Tegnell says.
The Swedish model is predicated on not finding a vaccine for around two years, it isn't a marathon because it's highly likely that one of the 7 candidates now in PIII trials will work and a vaccine will be available to developed nations with domestic manufacturing in H1 next year. The trials of the aerosolised version of the Oxford vaccine could produce a delivery method that gives almost full immunity in a form factor that is cheap and easy to distribute, that could be ready by the middle of next year depending on how the trials go, but that has already started too.
Sweden's model is far too negative, it assumed everything will always be crap so we'll just have to live with it. On the flip side I think the NZ model of full eradication comes with a huge economic sacrifice and inability of people to live normally for far too long. Our model is just rubbish in general, frankly it doesn't seem as though we have one. The German model seems to be working best, open what is possible to open, keep the schools running, keep socialising to small groups and mainly outdoors and put in properly tough rules on isolation and quarantine. Ours are a joke.
Good post. You say Sweden's model is far too negative - I must confess that I took an extremely negative view myself, with the premise that "we are almost all going to get it eventually". If you are right about a vaccine, then these views may prove overly negative and our freedoms can return and the economies survive, albeit with damage.
But what if you are wrong? It feels to me like we are taking a bigger risk than Sweden is. Perhaps "negative but prudent" better describes the Swedish route?
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
Unless I'm misreading the graph it shot up on 7/9 but has fallen daily since then and is back to 0.13% on 14/9 which is a third of what it was on 7/9
You are forgetting that testing capacity has max'd out (essentially).
This will distort any attempt to draw conclusions from this data.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
Sweden are going to 500 people being allowed to gather together.
We are at six. Swedish people meet, drink, hug, exercise and presumably f8ck unhindered by their government
That's all that matters. That's what's happening in Sweden. Now. That's what people will see. How can this be? How can they do this?
This is the Swedish government advice about sexual relationships.
"Our general guidelines state that people should maintain a physical distance from other people to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, particularly outside their immediate circles. Closeness, intimacy and sex promote well-being and a general good state of health. In a steady relationship, where people are already seeing each other and are close, sex is not precluded provided you or your partner/s are not showing any symptoms of illness. However, dating and casual sexual relationships with new partners put you at risk of being infected or of infecting others."
You have an idea about Sweden that is a complete fantasy. There is an argument that it would be preferable for the government to provide advice, rather than pass laws, but it seems that the people of Sweden are more prepared to follow advice, rather than insist on being forced to act by laws as in the UK.
And, compared to their peers in Norway and Finland they have paid a high price for this different approach.
It strikes me that what the Swedes have done is treat their citizens like responsible adults.
What most other governments in the West have done is treat their citizens like naughty children who cannot be trusted.
And so that's how they behave.
Maybe. Others might argue the causality was the other way round.
Especially given that we were attempting to follow a very similar strategy early on, which really didn't work out for us very well.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
My thanks, but I doubt it will end anything. When people are that desperate to believe something, they’ll find a way; facts or reality don’t stop them. Anything from making things up, to quibbling about something irrelevant, to simply ignoring it and waiting a short while before blaring it out again.
It all boils down to “I want this disruption to not be a thing any more, and I don’t want to be scared.”
My sense is that fearfulness is typically greater in those who advocate for tight national lockdowns, rather than those who advocate for alternative strategies such as risk segmentation.
My sense is rather different. The denialists have been loud from Day 1, and what drives denialism?
I wasn't referring to denialists – I was referring to those who understand the scale of the crisis, but call for alternative approaches.
And on the "Sweden's deaths were all because of care homes" - about 40% of Swedish deaths were of care home residents. A lower proportion than in Norway (over 60%).
That leaves Sweden's non-care-home deaths as a greater multiple of Norway's non-care-home deaths.
Of course those are only Corona deaths.
I do not know the numbers but it would be interesting to know if Swedes have or will have higher suicide rates and excess deaths from cancer, and every other disease under the sun who treatment has effectively be shelved by our Corona obsession.
Its almost like other diseases have ceased to exist.
This looks like a desperate last throw of the dice by the GOP which is looking at losing both the presidency and the Senate. Definitely not coming from a position of strength.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
Sweden are going to 500 people being allowed to gather together.
We are at six. Swedish people meet, drink, hug, exercise and presumably f8ck unhindered by their government
That's all that matters. That's what's happening in Sweden. Now. That's what people will see. How can this be? How can they do this?
This is the Swedish government advice about sexual relationships.
"Our general guidelines state that people should maintain a physical distance from other people to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, particularly outside their immediate circles. Closeness, intimacy and sex promote well-being and a general good state of health. In a steady relationship, where people are already seeing each other and are close, sex is not precluded provided you or your partner/s are not showing any symptoms of illness. However, dating and casual sexual relationships with new partners put you at risk of being infected or of infecting others."
You have an idea about Sweden that is a complete fantasy. There is an argument that it would be preferable for the government to provide advice, rather than pass laws, but it seems that the people of Sweden are more prepared to follow advice, rather than insist on being forced to act by laws as in the UK.
And, compared to their peers in Norway and Finland they have paid a high price for this different approach.
This isn't over yet. Sweden are running a marathon not a sprint as Tegnell says.
The Swedish model is predicated on not finding a vaccine for around two years, it isn't a marathon because it's highly likely that one of the 7 candidates now in PIII trials will work and a vaccine will be available to developed nations with domestic manufacturing in H1 next year. The trials of the aerosolised version of the Oxford vaccine could produce a delivery method that gives almost full immunity in a form factor that is cheap and easy to distribute, that could be ready by the middle of next year depending on how the trials go, but that has already started too.
Sweden's model is far too negative, it assumed everything will always be crap so we'll just have to live with it. On the flip side I think the NZ model of full eradication comes with a huge economic sacrifice and inability of people to live normally for far too long. Our model is just rubbish in general, frankly it doesn't seem as though we have one. The German model seems to be working best, open what is possible to open, keep the schools running, keep socialising to small groups and mainly outdoors and put in properly tough rules on isolation and quarantine. Ours are a joke.
Good post. You say Sweden's model is far too negative - I must confess that I took an extremely negative view myself, with the premise that "we are almost all going to get it eventually". f you are right about a vaccine, then these views may prove overly negative and our freedoms can return and the economies survive, albeit with damage.
But what if you are wrong? It feels to me like we are taking a bigger risk than Sweden is. Perhaps "negative but prudent" better describes the Swedish route?
I think the sheer weight of science and money going into a vaccine will tell, and it will be pretty soon too. The aerosolised version of the Oxford vaccine, IMO, is a gamechanger. Imperial have started a PI trial with it already and AIUI they have permission for a shortened PII/III combined trial if the PI is successful. In the initial trials it produced far fewer side effects and it produced a vastly better immune response than the injected variety. It is also extremely easy to distribute because it just needs an inhaler based system rather than sterile needles and medically trained staff.
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
My thanks, but I doubt it will end anything. When people are that desperate to believe something, they’ll find a way; facts or reality don’t stop them. Anything from making things up, to quibbling about something irrelevant, to simply ignoring it and waiting a short while before blaring it out again.
It all boils down to “I want this disruption to not be a thing any more, and I don’t want to be scared.”
Indeed. Imagine that, people not wishing to live their lives in fear.
Are you feeling fearful, Contrarian?
My fear of the virus is zero.
My fear of the response to it by the government reaction is high.
Thought so. Broadly same as me. I`d change your "zero" to "low" though - not zero. I don`t want it and am taking Foxian precautions: wash hands, zinc, selenium, have a oximeter, moderate social distancing.
Interesting in the questioning then between the Scottish Nationalist and the PM that the PM pointedly and repeatedly refused to answer the question as to whether he would refuse to grant a Section 30 Order following the next Holyrood election, instead sticking to the line that it hasn't been a generation but refusing to actually answer the question.
Very different to what HYUFD says here. He's absolutely not ruling out granting a S30 order, quite appropriately really as it surely depends upon how the election goes?
No he made it clear it was a once in a generation vote so no but regardless it is for Westminster to approve a vote, not the PM alone and the Tory majority of 80 will ensure it is voted down.
Though given Boris also today said he would impose tariffs on EU imports if we went to WTO terms Brexit if he did grant an indyref2 leading to a Yes and Scotland rejoined the EU prepare for tariffs on all EU and Scottish imports to England and Wales and vice versa within a year or 2
As I predicted you are swerving as you usual do when circumstances change
Now it is conservative mps who will vote it down rather than Boris will refuse to allow indy2
Interesting in the questioning then between the Scottish Nationalist and the PM that the PM pointedly and repeatedly refused to answer the question as to whether he would refuse to grant a Section 30 Order following the next Holyrood election, instead sticking to the line that it hasn't been a generation but refusing to actually answer the question.
Very different to what HYUFD says here. He's absolutely not ruling out granting a S30 order, quite appropriately really as it surely depends upon how the election goes?
No he made it clear it was a once in a generation vote so no but regardless it is for Westminster to approve a vote, not the PM alone and the Tory majority of 80 will ensure it is voted down.
Though given Boris also today said he would impose tariffs on EU imports if we went to WTO terms Brexit if he did grant an indyref2 leading to a Yes and Scotland rejoined the EU prepare for tariffs on all EU and Scottish imports to England and Wales and vice versa within a year or 2
As I predicted you are swerving as you usual do when circumstances change
Now it is conservative mps who will vote it down rather than Boris will refuse to allow indy2
Boris has not said he will grant indyref2 on the basis 2014 was a once in a generation vote but as I said it is for MPs to approve it, it is not a privilege of the executive.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
By the way, has anyone seen or heard of a single "Covid Marshall" actually being deployed? Anywhere?
I saw two in Ortisei at the weekend.
In the UK, councils have been left to sort out the arrangements themselves, with little guidance, no support, and - AFAIAA - no funding from central government. It’s a Bozo classic - take the credit with the PR announcement, and then do nothing, dumping the problem on someone else.
Those councils that already have multi-purpose enforcement officers, having replaced their traffic wardens with general enforcement patrol officers with a wider range of responsibilities, will probably just tack the Covid duties onto their job descriptions and tell them not to spend so much time dealing with parking problems the next few months.
What those still with the old style parking wardens will do, who knows?
Today's R estimate (= 4 day change in 7 day rolling average) = 1.09, compared with 1.15 yesterday and 1.38 four days ago. Centre date of this estimate - diagnosis on 7/9.
I'm still not assuming this is the full on second wave; I am still hoping we can halt the upwards momentum for a a number more weeks due to: fewer returning holidaymakers; good isolation level by earlier holiday makers, the north having had a few outdoorsy days above 21C, rule of six, proper testing prioritisation.
A landslide in the electoral college if that's right.
Well if Rasmussen was right it would be the biggest Republican victory in November since George W Bush was re elected in 2004 and Trump would pick up New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada and Maine and win the EC comfortably as well as winning the popular vote but obviously it is still only 1 poll
Interesting in the questioning then between the Scottish Nationalist and the PM that the PM pointedly and repeatedly refused to answer the question as to whether he would refuse to grant a Section 30 Order following the next Holyrood election, instead sticking to the line that it hasn't been a generation but refusing to actually answer the question.
Very different to what HYUFD says here. He's absolutely not ruling out granting a S30 order, quite appropriately really as it surely depends upon how the election goes?
No he made it clear it was a once in a generation vote so no but regardless it is for Westminster to approve a vote, not the PM alone and the Tory majority of 80 will ensure it is voted down.
Though given Boris also today said he would impose tariffs on EU imports if we went to WTO terms Brexit if he did grant an indyref2 leading to a Yes and Scotland rejoined the EU prepare for tariffs on all EU and Scottish imports to England and Wales and vice versa within a year or 2
As I predicted you are swerving as you usual do when circumstances change
Now it is conservative mps who will vote it down rather than Boris will refuse to allow indy2
Boris has not said he will grant indyref2 on the basis 2014 was a once in a generation vote but as I said it is for MPs to approve it, it is not a privilege of the executive.
Nooooo! You were a founder member of TrumpToast. You can't leave before the big day.
I will be rejoining after the Dems price rises. Thr betting is not being driven by the polls. If it was driven by the polls the GOP should be 3. Instead they are barely above evens.
The betting is being driven by feelings and these investigations will drive feelings.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
Unless I'm misreading the graph it shot up on 7/9 but has fallen daily since then and is back to 0.13% on 14/9 which is a third of what it was on 7/9
That's a specimen date graph, the last 7 days should be ignored because we don't have the full dataset yet.
That's confusing, even if we don't have the full dataset yet we should I would have thought have the right proportion of what we do have that is positive. Unless the denominator is total tests including unprocessed ones and not total processed tests.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
Anyone want to offer me odds on it being one of Trafalgar or Rasmussen ? Edit: Rasmussen
The pollster whose final 2016 poll correctly had Hillary 2% ahead in the popular vote?
So, a couple of articles / posts that people might want to read / consider. Up front, these are articles that raise questions about Biden being the firm favourite, so look away now if you don't want to read.
First of all, the USC Dornsife poll which has seen a noticeable fall in the Biden lead in the past several days - from 12.2% on Sep 11th to 7.1% on Sep 15th
Second, why the Trump campaign believes it has the advantage over Biden. I am sure many will disagree with their points but worth looking at what they are saying:
Third, comments from attendees at a Trump rally in Nevada. Two things struck me. One was the comment that Trump has a noticeable block of African-American support but it is scared about showing support and second, the scepticism about the polls mainly around it not fitting around what people are seeing on the ground:
Finally, Time on why Democrats in Michigan are nervous about Biden's campaign there and are worried the state may go Red again in November. It boils down to what is a recurring theme in a number of these articles from inside the Democratic camp namely unease over conducting a virtual campaign and not meeting voters face to face:
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
Sweden are going to 500 people being allowed to gather together.
We are at six. Swedish people meet, drink, hug, exercise and presumably f8ck unhindered by their government
That's all that matters. That's what's happening in Sweden. Now. That's what people will see. How can this be? How can they do this?
This is the Swedish government advice about sexual relationships.
"Our general guidelines state that people should maintain a physical distance from other people to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, particularly outside their immediate circles. Closeness, intimacy and sex promote well-being and a general good state of health. In a steady relationship, where people are already seeing each other and are close, sex is not precluded provided you or your partner/s are not showing any symptoms of illness. However, dating and casual sexual relationships with new partners put you at risk of being infected or of infecting others."
You have an idea about Sweden that is a complete fantasy. There is an argument that it would be preferable for the government to provide advice, rather than pass laws, but it seems that the people of Sweden are more prepared to follow advice, rather than insist on being forced to act by laws as in the UK.
And, compared to their peers in Norway and Finland they have paid a high price for this different approach.
It strikes me that what the Swedes have done is treat their citizens like responsible adults.
What most other governments in the West have done is treat their citizens like naughty children who cannot be trusted.
And so that's how they behave.
Maybe. Others might argue the causality was the other way round.
The point I was making is that people in Sweden are not living the life of debauched freedom that you imagine you could live were the government simply to follow their example.
They've still experienced the frustrating physical distance necessary to control the virus (in the absence of effective test, trace and isolate).
Well Sweden has succeeded in one thing at least, getting our Sean to swing 180 degrees from utterly castigating their complacency at the beginning to becoming an advocate for their approach more recently.
That’s if getting Sean to be inconsistent can count as an achievement,
Jeez, yet more fantasy bollocks from people who desperately want to believe it could all just go away.
The "85,000 deaths predicted by the Imperial Model" was always bollocks; anyone with half a brain could see that given that their previously published spreadsheet had a maximum of 83,000 deaths with no mitigations applied by the Government or populace at an R0 of 3.0. So how in God's name could the mitigations they did come up with increase the death toll? Sort of breaks the first rule of plausibility, doesn't it?
And none of these fantasists bother to compare Sweden with its neighbours - Norway and Finland. Both of which locked down early, both of which released restrictions to a greater extent than Sweden since then, both of which have death tolls under 10% per capita of the Swedish ones, and both of which have done significantly better economically.
But no. That doesn't matter. There are enough people who desperately want to believe that Sweden somehow managed to keep all freedoms, did so much better than anywhere else economically and in terms of death toll, that they'll swallow any old shite.
It's the children of the World War II warriors who most fall into this category. The ones who idolised their parents and their fight against the odds - yet who have faced their own test with an instant retreat into one or another of denialism, or to try to find some way to surrender and collaborate with a mindless virus.
"It's not that bad!" "If we just let it go through, we'll be fine!" "It's not actually happening at all - something something 'flu something would have died soon anyway" "SWEDEN!" "I don't want my way of life to change for even a few months; let someone else pay the price, I'll be okay!"
They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
Rather nailed it there, Andy. Don't expect we'll be hearing anymore about Sweden now.
My thanks, but I doubt it will end anything. When people are that desperate to believe something, they’ll find a way; facts or reality don’t stop them. Anything from making things up, to quibbling about something irrelevant, to simply ignoring it and waiting a short while before blaring it out again.
It all boils down to “I want this disruption to not be a thing any more, and I don’t want to be scared.”
Indeed. Imagine that, people not wishing to live their lives in fear.
Are you feeling fearful, Contrarian?
My fear of the virus is zero.
My fear of the response to it by the government reaction is high.
Thought so. Broadly same as me. I`d change your "zero" to "low" though - not zero. I don`t want it and am taking Foxian precautions: wash hands, zinc, selenium, have a oximeter, moderate social distancing.
I'm with you on this......Who does want an unpleasant nasty illness?
My great apprehension is that as the government's mishandling of this crisis grows ever greater, the ability to face that fact diminishes further. I shudder to think what it may be capable of in the coming months to avoid confrontation with the truth. Because the truth, whenever it is faced, is enormous. No British government has ever, ever done attempted what has been attempted here, for whatever reason. We are in uncharted territory.
And I fear only a complete collapse really brings the thing to its senses. Even then I'm not sure.
“Dominic,” I said, “everyone is coming to me with problems. And you come to me with solutions for problems that lie 20 years in the future. Your last solution to the Irish border was facial recognition for sheep. Can we sit down and concentrate on what the Gover likes to refer to as the here and now?”
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
And once our government starts working through all the possible exemptions - shift workers, essential workers, people in flats with dogs that need a nighttime crap, you name it, they would turn it into the usual abject mess in any case, and simply add it to the list of complicated policies that no-one needs to know since they aren’t being enforced anyhow.
People wandering around at night on their own aren’t how the virus is spreading. Indoor social gatherings are already covered by complicated rules that no-one understands and aren’t being enforced.
Grouse dont get shot in the dark so at least that won’t be a problem.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
10pm to 5.00am would make illegal gatherings more difficult to arrange and easier to police
It would also demonstrate how serious HMG is taking the situation
A landslide in the electoral college if that's right.
Well if Rasmussen was right it would be the biggest Republican victory in November since George W Bush was re elected in 2004 and Trump would pick up New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada and Maine and win the EC comfortably as well as winning the popular vote but obviously it is still only 1 poll
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
Unless I'm misreading the graph it shot up on 7/9 but has fallen daily since then and is back to 0.13% on 14/9 which is a third of what it was on 7/9
That's a specimen date graph, the last 7 days should be ignored because we don't have the full dataset yet.
That's confusing, even if we don't have the full dataset yet we should I would have thought have the right proportion of what we do have that is positive. Unless the denominator is total tests including unprocessed ones and not total processed tests.
I thought you were in favour of counting tests posted out rather than tests processed?
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
Unless I'm misreading the graph it shot up on 7/9 but has fallen daily since then and is back to 0.13% on 14/9 which is a third of what it was on 7/9
That's a specimen date graph, the last 7 days should be ignored because we don't have the full dataset yet.
That's confusing, even if we don't have the full dataset yet we should I would have thought have the right proportion of what we do have that is positive. Unless the denominator is total tests including unprocessed ones and not total processed tests.
The issue will be that -
1) The number of tests performed in known, per day. At the moment it is fairly up to date. 2) The number of positives for *a given day, by specimen date,* is updated over a number of days.
1 and 2 together mean that the positivity will rise for the last few days as we go forward....
A landslide in the electoral college if that's right.
Well if Rasmussen was right it would be the biggest Republican victory in November since George W Bush was re elected in 2004 and Trump would pick up New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada and Maine and win the EC comfortably as well as winning the popular vote but obviously it is still only 1 poll
Since when has only one poll ever held you back?
Unfortunately the one poll HYUFD focused on for weeks ten months ago turned out to be spot on.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
10pm to 5.00am would make illegal gatherings more difficult to arrange and easier to police
It would also demonstrate how serious HMG is taking the situation
On the first point I don't see how it would make them more difficult to arrange, wouldn't they just have them from 6pm to 10pm and then everyone goes home at 10pm? The rule of six laws cover illegal gatherings already so I'm not sure what virtue there is in making life even more awful with a curfew. Curfews also feel very un-British, it would be a hugely unnecessary overreaction and set a rubbish precedent for the future.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
On the other hand ... according to Sir Edward Leigh:
"If 80% of cases are asymptomatic then an increase in confirmed cases is not grounds for worry.
Hospitalisations & deaths are the indicator we need to react to, not confirmed cases. Even more so as testing is better targeted.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
10pm to 5.00am would make illegal gatherings more difficult to arrange and easier to police
It would also demonstrate how serious HMG is taking the situation
Think so?
If you want to make something attractive to young people, make it illegal. Look at drugs.
Universities will be riddled with 'speakeasy' style fit ups impossible to monitor or police. Where the virus will run effing rampant.
Can anyone explain why there is such an incredible north/south divide in the positive case numbers?
As I have said before if the South of England was a country it would have the lowest infection rates in Europe.
There was a first hand report from someone living in south Hampshire about good compliance with mask wearing. Perhaps that's what's making the difference?
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
And once our government starts working through all the possible exemptions - shift workers, essential workers, people in flats with dogs that need a nighttime crap, you name it, they would turn it into the usual abject mess in any case, and simply add it to the list of complicated policies that no-one needs to know since they aren’t being enforced anyhow.
People wandering around at night on their own aren’t how the virus is spreading. Indoor social gatherings are already covered by complicated rules that no-one understands and aren’t being enforced.
Grouse dont get shot in the dark so at least that won’t be a problem.
You do know grouse shooting is a UK wide policy backed by Sturgeon and Drakeford
Can anyone explain why there is such an incredible north/south divide in the positive case numbers?
As I have said before if the South of England was a country it would have the lowest infection rates in Europe.
The likely outbreak zones already have some level of herd immunity due to the large Feb-April figures. It makes it more difficult to have another large scale outbreak because the virus runs into a lot of people with immunity, especially those who are out and about and more likely to catch it.
Can anyone explain why there is such an incredible north/south divide in the positive case numbers?
As I have said before if the South of England was a country it would have the lowest infection rates in Europe.
There was a first hand report from someone living in south Hampshire about good compliance with mask wearing. Perhaps that's what's making the difference?
Anyone want to offer me odds on it being one of Trafalgar or Rasmussen ? Edit: Rasmussen
The pollster whose final 2016 poll correctly had Hillary 2% ahead in the popular vote?
So, a couple of articles / posts that people might want to read / consider. Up front, these are articles that raise questions about Biden being the firm favourite, so look away now if you don't want to read.
First of all, the USC Dornsife poll which has seen a noticeable fall in the Biden lead in the past several days - from 12.2% on Sep 11th to 7.1% on Sep 15th
It is a tracker with a rotating panel. If you look 10 days previously almost exactly the same cycle played out, from huge Biden lead to tightening the into the current cycle.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
10pm to 5.00am would make illegal gatherings more difficult to arrange and easier to police
It would also demonstrate how serious HMG is taking the situation
On the first point I don't see how it would make them more difficult to arrange, wouldn't they just have them from 6pm to 10pm and then everyone goes home at 10pm? The rule of six laws cover illegal gatherings already so I'm not sure what virtue there is in making life even more awful with a curfew. Curfews also feel very un-British, it would be a hugely unnecessary overreaction and set a rubbish precedent for the future.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
10pm to 5.00am would make illegal gatherings more difficult to arrange and easier to police
It would also demonstrate how serious HMG is taking the situation
On the first point I don't see how it would make them more difficult to arrange, wouldn't they just have them from 6pm to 10pm and then everyone goes home at 10pm? The rule of six laws cover illegal gatherings already so I'm not sure what virtue there is in making life even more awful with a curfew. Curfews also feel very un-British, it would be a hugely unnecessary overreaction and set a rubbish precedent for the future.
Can anyone explain why there is such an incredible north/south divide in the positive case numbers?
As I have said before if the South of England was a country it would have the lowest infection rates in Europe.
Provided you exclude London, which is also ticking upwards
Take Southampton & Portsmouth, high density living, crowded city centres, ports, etc etc hardly any cases. Compare to Bolton & Bradford, they are having 20 times as many cases at least.
'President Trump has now edged to a one-point lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey. While statistically insignificant, it’s the first time Trump has been ahead.
The new national telephone and online survey finds the president with a 47% to 46% lead over Biden among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while four percent (4%) remain undecided.
The new survey finds Trump with 80% support among Republicans and a nine-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major party. Biden has 80% of the Democrat vote.
Trump shows surprising strength among other minority voters, suggesting perhaps that he is attracting Hispanic support as violent racial protests continue in many major cities.'
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
Unless I'm misreading the graph it shot up on 7/9 but has fallen daily since then and is back to 0.13% on 14/9 which is a third of what it was on 7/9
That's a specimen date graph, the last 7 days should be ignored because we don't have the full dataset yet.
That's confusing, even if we don't have the full dataset yet we should I would have thought have the right proportion of what we do have that is positive. Unless the denominator is total tests including unprocessed ones and not total processed tests.
The issue will be that -
1) The number of tests performed in known, per day. At the moment it is fairly up to date. 2) The number of positives for *a given day, by specimen date,* is updated over a number of days.
1 and 2 together mean that the positivity will rise for the last few days as we go forward....
Right so it's a nominator of processed confirmed tests and a denominator of total processed and unprocessed tests. So the figure is meaningless then?
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
Unless I'm misreading the graph it shot up on 7/9 but has fallen daily since then and is back to 0.13% on 14/9 which is a third of what it was on 7/9
That's a specimen date graph, the last 7 days should be ignored because we don't have the full dataset yet.
That's confusing, even if we don't have the full dataset yet we should I would have thought have the right proportion of what we do have that is positive. Unless the denominator is total tests including unprocessed ones and not total processed tests.
The issue will be that -
1) The number of tests performed in known, per day. At the moment it is fairly up to date. 2) The number of positives for *a given day, by specimen date,* is updated over a number of days.
1 and 2 together mean that the positivity will rise for the last few days as we go forward....
Right so it's a nominator of processed confirmed tests and a denominator of total processed and unprocessed tests. So the figure is meaningless then?
At least for the last 7 days because we don't know the full number of positive results.
@Malmesbury thanks for doing the positivity charts again, it looks to me like the positivity rate is dropping off in recent days despite the fact that case numbers are not dropping off, I wonder why?
Is that because there's more tests being done?
No it's not because more tests are being done, the same number are being done, the positivity rate is going up. Part of this is, IMO, that people who are meant to be isolating are not doing so properly and are causing further community spread after a positive test result because they may be asymptomatic and "feel fine". I think there is also a lot of cases being imported at the moment from red list countries and those people are not isolating properly either.
Unless I'm misreading the graph it shot up on 7/9 but has fallen daily since then and is back to 0.13% on 14/9 which is a third of what it was on 7/9
That's a specimen date graph, the last 7 days should be ignored because we don't have the full dataset yet.
That's confusing, even if we don't have the full dataset yet we should I would have thought have the right proportion of what we do have that is positive. Unless the denominator is total tests including unprocessed ones and not total processed tests.
The issue will be that -
1) The number of tests performed in known, per day. At the moment it is fairly up to date. 2) The number of positives for *a given day, by specimen date,* is updated over a number of days.
1 and 2 together mean that the positivity will rise for the last few days as we go forward....
Right so it's a nominator of processed confirmed tests and a denominator of total processed and unprocessed tests. So the figure is meaningless then?
At least for the last 7 days because we don't know the full number of positive results.
Thanks that makes sense. I'd assumed it was a percentage of processed tests. Will be interesting to see how those figures develop then.
Can anyone explain why there is such an incredible north/south divide in the positive case numbers?
As I have said before if the South of England was a country it would have the lowest infection rates in Europe.
Provided you exclude London, which is also ticking upwards
Take Southampton & Portsmouth, high density living, crowded city centres, ports, etc etc hardly any cases. Compare to Bolton & Bradford, they are having 20 times as many cases at least.
Best explanation I have heard is that these are the areas which had the highest incidence when lockdown was lifted. The virus was not suppressed there in the way it was in others. Don't know how that stacks up, but that was what the MEN lady, who has been v good on the pandemic, just said on PM. Feeding through into hospitalisations in Gt. Mcr. now too.
Maybe this has already been noted, but in case it hasn't: SpreadEx are now taking spread bets on the US election. A large spread though; Biden ECV currently quoted at 285-293. (SPIN are now up a bit from their opening price, at 284-290, or, better still, use the supremacy market which has half the effective spread)).
'President Trump has now edged to a one-point lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey. While statistically insignificant, it’s the first time Trump has been ahead.
The new national telephone and online survey finds the president with a 47% to 46% lead over Biden among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while four percent (4%) remain undecided.
The new survey finds Trump with 80% support among Republicans and a nine-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major party. Biden has 80% of the Democrat vote.
Trump shows surprising strength among other minority voters, suggesting perhaps that he is attracting Hispanic support as violent racial protests continue in many major cities.'
The comment about Hispanic support would mirror what has been reported in a number of other articles around growing concern amongst the Democrats about their margin of the Hispanic vote.
There is a risk here that the Democrats - in trying to rectify what they saw one of the key reason why they lost in 2016, namely depressed Black turnout - may have made the mistake of neglecting the Hispanic community in the belief that their votes are "locked in". There has been growing concern amongst Democrat sources as to their position in the Hispanic community.
The Rasmussen polls also backs up the view that what other polls have found eg Monmouth with Black Americans most concerned about crime, may be starting to impact voting intentions
Anyone want to offer me odds on it being one of Trafalgar or Rasmussen ? Edit: Rasmussen
The pollster whose final 2016 poll correctly had Hillary 2% ahead in the popular vote?
So, a couple of articles / posts that people might want to read / consider. Up front, these are articles that raise questions about Biden being the firm favourite, so look away now if you don't want to read.
First of all, the USC Dornsife poll which has seen a noticeable fall in the Biden lead in the past several days - from 12.2% on Sep 11th to 7.1% on Sep 15th
It is a tracker with a rotating panel. If you look 10 days previously almost exactly the same cycle played out, from huge Biden lead to tightening the into the current cycle.
Not disagreeing with you Alistair, I'm waiting to see what happens next. But a few days back, people on here were quoting the 12 point lead Biden had as a sign his lead was holding up.
Once again Mr Trending Stongly Downwards having difficulty with the concept of lagged data sets.
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
Indeed, I think the rule of six has been introduced at the right time, for once. I also think we should look at much tougher lockdown rules in large parts of the country and essentially close them down for entry and exit for a couple of weeks and make everyone stay indoors again. Better to do that in Bolton and Bradford now rather than do it for the whole country in 6 weeks.
I really think the UK should have a national curfew
I don't really see the point, none of the night time economy is really open anyway, pubs close at 11pm so I don't know what a curfew would achieve other than make life feel like an Orwellian nightmare.
10pm to 5.00am would make illegal gatherings more difficult to arrange and easier to police
It would also demonstrate how serious HMG is taking the situation
On the first point I don't see how it would make them more difficult to arrange, wouldn't they just have them from 6pm to 10pm and then everyone goes home at 10pm? The rule of six laws cover illegal gatherings already so I'm not sure what virtue there is in making life even more awful with a curfew. Curfews also feel very un-British, it would be a hugely unnecessary overreaction and set a rubbish precedent for the future.
That's my feeling too. A policed curfew would tip me into Toby Young's clutches. But it won't be happening.
'President Trump has now edged to a one-point lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey. While statistically insignificant, it’s the first time Trump has been ahead.
The new national telephone and online survey finds the president with a 47% to 46% lead over Biden among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while four percent (4%) remain undecided.
The new survey finds Trump with 80% support among Republicans and a nine-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major party. Biden has 80% of the Democrat vote.
Trump shows surprising strength among other minority voters, suggesting perhaps that he is attracting Hispanic support as violent racial protests continue in many major cities.'
The comment about Hispanic support would mirror what has been reported in a number of other articles around growing concern amongst the Democrats about their margin of the Hispanic vote.
There is a risk here that the Democrats - in trying to rectify what they saw one of the key reason why they lost in 2016, namely depressed Black turnout - may have made the mistake of neglecting the Hispanic community in the belief that their votes are "locked in". There has been growing concern amongst Democrat sources as to their position in the Hispanic community.
The Rasmussen polls also backs up the view that what other polls have found eg Monmouth with Black Americans most concerned about crime, may be starting to impact voting intentions
Rasmussen recently retweeted some polls they ran from June of this year showing black voters were more concerned about crime than most other groups.
Nooooo! You were a founder member of TrumpToast. You can't leave before the big day.
I will be rejoining after the Dems price rises. Thr betting is not being driven by the polls. If it was driven by the polls the GOP should be 3. Instead they are barely above evens.
The betting is being driven by feelings and these investigations will drive feelings.
Ok. My feeling is that the Trump price is only going one way - out - so you might not be able to remount. But let's see. Obviously I would rather I was right here than you. ☺
Comments
Precious little attention has been paid to the "fight, flight, feign, freeze" response.
These are deeply embedded personal neural pathways.
Difficult to short circuit by logic or policy.
https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1306229875636932608?s=19
I have cashed out my position.
The point I was making is that people in Sweden are not living the life of debauched freedom that you imagine you could live were the government simply to follow their example.
They've still experienced the frustrating physical distance necessary to control the virus (in the absence of effective test, trace and isolate).
Marshals will either stand around in a high viz paying lip service to the job or be absolute traffic warden jobsworths. Can't see them being effective with no real powers.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1306255796666281984
My fear of the response to it by the government reaction is high.
Though given Boris also today said he would impose tariffs on EU imports if we went to WTO terms Brexit if he did grant an indyref2 leading to a Yes and Scotland rejoined the EU prepare for tariffs on all EU and Scottish imports to England and Wales and vice versa within a year or 2
That leaves Sweden's non-care-home deaths as a greater multiple of Norway's non-care-home deaths.
But what if you are wrong? It feels to me like we are taking a bigger risk than Sweden is. Perhaps "negative but prudent" better describes the Swedish route?
This will distort any attempt to draw conclusions from this data.
Anyone want to offer me odds on it being one of Trafalgar or Rasmussen ?
Edit: Rasmussen
If it has got to the stage of problems in hospitals we are a minimum of two weeks late taking action.
We have multiple examples of US states, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, who all followed the Prof Gupta style advice of "everyone's secretly had it, unlock now for no ill effect" and they all got hammered.
As I said.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1306256209075470339?s=20
I do not know the numbers but it would be interesting to know if Swedes have or will have higher suicide rates and excess deaths from cancer, and every other disease under the sun who treatment has effectively be shelved by our Corona obsession.
Its almost like other diseases have ceased to exist.
Now it is conservative mps who will vote it down rather than Boris will refuse to allow indy2
https://twitter.com/JonTonge/status/1306258362556993536?s=20
I saw two in Ortisei at the weekend.
In the UK, councils have been left to sort out the arrangements themselves, with little guidance, no support, and - AFAIAA - no funding from central government. It’s a Bozo classic - take the credit with the PR announcement, and then do nothing, dumping the problem on someone else.
Those councils that already have multi-purpose enforcement officers, having replaced their traffic wardens with general enforcement patrol officers with a wider range of responsibilities, will probably just tack the Covid duties onto their job descriptions and tell them not to spend so much time dealing with parking problems the next few months.
What those still with the old style parking wardens will do, who knows?
I'm still not assuming this is the full on second wave; I am still hoping we can halt the upwards momentum for a a number more weeks due to: fewer returning holidaymakers; good isolation level by earlier holiday makers, the north having had a few outdoorsy days above 21C, rule of six, proper testing prioritisation.
The betting is being driven by feelings and these investigations will drive feelings.
First of all, the USC Dornsife poll which has seen a noticeable fall in the Biden lead in the past several days - from 12.2% on Sep 11th to 7.1% on Sep 15th
https://election.usc.edu/
Second, why the Trump campaign believes it has the advantage over Biden. I am sure many will disagree with their points but worth looking at what they are saying:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-trump-campaign-believes-it-has-biden-on-the-ropes-here-s-why/ar-BB195UYk
Third, comments from attendees at a Trump rally in Nevada. Two things struck me. One was the comment that Trump has a noticeable block of African-American support but it is scared about showing support and second, the scepticism about the polls mainly around it not fitting around what people are seeing on the ground:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/trump-rally-goers-on-why-they-took-the-risk-to-attend-nevada-campaign-events-favor-the-president-amid-pandemic
Finally, Time on why Democrats in Michigan are nervous about Biden's campaign there and are worried the state may go Red again in November. It boils down to what is a recurring theme in a number of these articles from inside the Democratic camp namely unease over conducting a virtual campaign and not meeting voters face to face:
https://time.com/5889093/joe-biden-michigan-campaign/
That’s if getting Sean to be inconsistent can count as an achievement,
My great apprehension is that as the government's mishandling of this crisis grows ever greater, the ability to face that fact diminishes further. I shudder to think what it may be capable of in the coming months to avoid confrontation with the truth. Because the truth, whenever it is faced, is enormous. No British government has ever, ever done attempted what has been attempted here, for whatever reason. We are in uncharted territory.
And I fear only a complete collapse really brings the thing to its senses. Even then I'm not sure.
https://www.onartificialintelligence.com/articles/18531/worlds-first-sheep-facial-recognition-software
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_nov7
People wandering around at night on their own aren’t how the virus is spreading. Indoor social gatherings are already covered by complicated rules that no-one understands and aren’t being enforced.
Grouse dont get shot in the dark so at least that won’t be a problem.
It would also demonstrate how serious HMG is taking the situation
1) The number of tests performed in known, per day. At the moment it is fairly up to date.
2) The number of positives for *a given day, by specimen date,* is updated over a number of days.
1 and 2 together mean that the positivity will rise for the last few days as we go forward....
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/
"If 80% of cases are asymptomatic then an increase in confirmed cases is not grounds for worry.
Hospitalisations & deaths are the indicator we need to react to, not confirmed cases. Even more so as testing is better targeted.
End these dubious restrictions!"
If you want to make something attractive to young people, make it illegal. Look at drugs.
Universities will be riddled with 'speakeasy' style fit ups impossible to monitor or police. Where the virus will run effing rampant.
As I have said before if the South of England was a country it would have the lowest infection rates in Europe.
SEP 13-15, 2020
B
YouGov
1,192 RV Biden
50%
41%
Trump Biden +9
President: general election
SEP 13-15, 2020
B
YouGov
1,062 LV Biden
51%
42%
Trump Biden +9
President: general election
SEP 11-15, 2020
B-
Ipsos
859 LV Biden
50%
41%
Trump Biden +9
President: general election
SEP 11-15, 2020
B-
Ipsos
1,133 RV Biden
47%
39%
Trump Biden +8
President: general election
SEP 11-15, 2020
B-
Ipsos
1,358 A Biden
43%
37%
Trump Biden +6
President: general election
SEP 9-15, 2020
B/C
USC Dornsife
2,865 LV Biden
50%
43%
Trump Biden +7
President: general election
SEP 9-15, 2020
B/C
USC Dornsife
2,865 LV Biden
50%
43%
Trump Biden +7
President: general election
SEP 9-15, 2020
C+
Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research
2,500 LV Biden
46%
47%
Trump Trump +1
President: general election
SEP 10-13, 2020
Qriously
2,065 LV Biden
46%
More Biden +4
Not that I personally support the sport
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1303731977615486979?s=09
The new national telephone and online survey finds the president with a 47% to 46% lead over Biden among Likely U.S. Voters. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while four percent (4%) remain undecided.
The new survey finds Trump with 80% support among Republicans and a nine-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major party. Biden has 80% of the Democrat vote.
Trump shows surprising strength among other minority voters, suggesting perhaps that he is attracting Hispanic support as violent racial protests continue in many major cities.'
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_sep16
The virus was not suppressed there in the way it was in others.
Don't know how that stacks up, but that was what the MEN lady, who has been v good on the pandemic, just said on PM.
Feeding through into hospitalisations in Gt. Mcr. now too.
Maybe this has already been noted, but in case it hasn't: SpreadEx are now taking spread bets on the US election. A large spread though; Biden ECV currently quoted at 285-293. (SPIN are now up a bit from their opening price, at 284-290, or, better still, use the supremacy market which has half the effective spread)).
https://www.spreadex.com/sports/en-GB/spread-betting/politics/us-presidential-election-2020/us-presidential-election-2020/spr/p832517
https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/politics/american/group_b.6170a238-f504-47f4-9b78-667fc1ce8011/us-presidential-election-markets
There is a risk here that the Democrats - in trying to rectify what they saw one of the key reason why they lost in 2016, namely depressed Black turnout - may have made the mistake of neglecting the Hispanic community in the belief that their votes are "locked in". There has been growing concern amongst Democrat sources as to their position in the Hispanic community.
The Rasmussen polls also backs up the view that what other polls have found eg Monmouth with Black Americans most concerned about crime, may be starting to impact voting intentions
Defund the police? quite the opposite.