Anecdote alert. Just been for a walk. Outside very middle class house, sprawling across a hedge a c12 foot home made banner yelling "YES TO INFORMAL CHILDCARE." I had no idea what that was, but it appears to be this.
Chinese cameras blacklisted by US being used in UK school toilets
Surveillance cameras made by Hikvision, the Chinese company that has been implicated in grave human rights violations and has been blacklisted by the US government, are being used across the UK, from leisure centres in London to school toilets in west Norfolk.
Maybe. On the other hand he isn't that far off being 60 years old which until relatively recently was regarded as old.
All PMs (and Presidents etc) get this. But the fact is nobody ever gets any younger and, if you compare a good picture of someone five years ago with an unflattering one of them today, they will look as if they've aged pretty badly.
In truth, Johnson basically looks like a man in his late 50s who isn't that fit but isn't horrifically unhealthy with a range of underlying conditions either, and who came through a nasty illness earlier in the year. Which is exactly what he is.
One's a lying charlatan* who trashed his reputation and that of his nation over a major policy disaster whilst the other is, I'm sorry I've completely lost my train of thought here.
*I deserve to be flogged for that horrendous tautology.
Are you thinking of Tony Johnson or was it Boris Blair ?
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
If only 20% are voting by mail then that means literally no more people are going to request a mail ballot (as ballot requests are already at 20% of 2016 turnout) or 2020 is going to be fucking mega.
"Sweden has exposed the cruel folly of lockdown Sweden’s strategy was subjected to a global smear campaign, but now it’s showing results. Fraser Myers"
The funny bit, of course, is that in opinion polls in Sweden, people wish the government had gone with the German approach.
People don't like death. I wish we had gone with the German approach too. Not obvious why the country with 13th worst Covid death rate in the world should be the role model for the one with the 9th worst (5th and 3rd in Europe respectively). At least Germany comes in at a more respectable 50 position
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
Because each state has their own rules and pollsters have differing methodologies, some respondents in some states maybe excluded because pollsters aren't allowed to ask how people *HAVE* voted by mail.
The cricket had it right. Interestingly the NFL and the players association wanted to do 7 months living in a similar bubble of hotels / training complexes and the owners veto'ed it in favour of daily testing.
It has been a fear of mine for a while that these season's Champions League won't happen.
Also that plan to host Euro 2020/21 across lots of European cities may also get nixed.
474 spectators at Warwick races this afternoon and 1,000 on each of the three days at Newmarket later in the week.
It's easy to follow the protocols on a glorious afternoon when you can sit outside at your table and there's little or no indoor interaction with others. With the weather changing later this week it's going to be more of a challenge but Newmarket has acres of indoor space so 1,000 won't be the problem it would be at Plumpton for example.
Back in the days when I was mad, I attended Lingfield and remember watching a Class 6 Seller from the roof of the hospitality stand in a blizzard. I backed the winner, thank the Lord but with hindsight was a 7/2 winner worth hypothermia?
The fact is Newmarket can't survive on a 1,000 crowd limit - the cost of the biosecurity protocols are one thing but the "crowd" are going to be Owners and Annual Members - the former get a freebie for having a runner and the latter have already paid their sub so there's no new income coming in to the track.
Racecourses don't exist just on racing - they hold Conferences, exhibitions, weddings, Christmas parties and the like and the collapse of that income stream has hit them very hard.
Yet, to play Devil's Advocate a little, racecourses aren't rail operators. No one forces a racecourse to have a race meeting and part of me argues this "we've lost thousands of pounds but we want to keep racing" schtick needs to be called out. Two courses (Brighton and Worcester) have been mothballed and if I were running racing, I'd have concentrated on 20 tracks (including the all-weather venues) and held the meetings there while trying to support the others as much as possible.
One example - they re-opened Epsom Downs, spending a fortune on railing off public land and doing all the work for just one afternoon because the Derby and the Oaks HAD to be at Epsom. They didn't - they could have been at Ascot, Newmarket or Goodwood and they would still have been the same race. The Coronation Cup is apparently not that special because that went to Newmarket.
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
If only 20% are voting by mail then that means literally no more people are going to request a mail ballot (as ballot requests are already at 20% of 2016 turnout) or 2020 is going to be fucking mega.
Can the ballots be requested and then delivered in person ?
Some will end up not being used I guess (Why you'd request one then not vote is beyond me but some people are like that).
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
Because each state has their own rules and pollsters have differing methodologies, some respondents in some states maybe excluded because pollsters aren't allowed to ask how people *HAVE* voted by mail it is possible that the polling might be flawed.
If people are being excluded who have voted by mail already that'll introduce a whopping Trump skew. Might ask Emerson about it directly.
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
Because each state has their own rules and pollsters have differing methodologies, some respondents in some states maybe excluded because pollsters aren't allowed to ask how people *HAVE* voted by mail it is possible that the polling might be flawed.
If people are being excluded who have voted by mail already that'll introduce a whopping Trump skew. Might ask Emerson about it directly.
Even if you have already voted you can still answer a hypothetical question about how you would vote, surely?
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
One's a lying charlatan* who trashed his reputation and that of his nation over a major policy disaster whilst the other is, I'm sorry I've completely lost my train of thought here.
*I deserve to be flogged for that horrendous tautology.
Not quite a tautology - a charlatan is always a liar but a liar might not be a charlatan. Though I grant that 'lying' was redundant in this instance, so maybe you're right?
Anyway for all his many flaws I'd far rather have Tone (or any other PM in my living memory) in charge now than the current muppet.
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
Given Biden is now ahead in Pennsylvania it seems and doing better with the HS or less crowd elsewhere in the Midwest but Trump it seems is doing better with the rich, even if most of them don't want to shout about it and most rich voters live on the coasts it makes it more likely Biden could win the rustbelt swing states Hillary lost and the EC while Trump does better than he did in 2016 in California and New York and holds Florida and narrowly wins the popular vote
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
Because each state has their own rules and pollsters have differing methodologies, some respondents in some states maybe excluded because pollsters aren't allowed to ask how people *HAVE* voted by mail it is possible that the polling might be flawed.
If people are being excluded who have voted by mail already that'll introduce a whopping Trump skew. Might ask Emerson about it directly.
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Some need to eat humble pie on this, not least Professor John Ashton who made the accusation to Kay Burley live on Sky this morning and to be fair she rebuked him and the interview soon concluded
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
One's a lying charlatan* who trashed his reputation and that of his nation over a major policy disaster whilst the other is, I'm sorry I've completely lost my train of thought here.
*I deserve to be flogged for that horrendous tautology.
Not quite a tautology - a charlatan is always a liar but a liar might not be a charlatan. Though I grant that 'lying' was redundant in this instance, so maybe you're right?
Anyway for all his many flaws I'd far rather have Tone (or any other PM in my living memory) in charge now than the current muppet.
I'm always right, like a much better version of Papal infallibility.
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
If only 20% are voting by mail then that means literally no more people are going to request a mail ballot (as ballot requests are already at 20% of 2016 turnout) or 2020 is going to be fucking mega.
Can the ballots be requested and then delivered in person ?
Some will end up not being used I guess (Why you'd request one then not vote is beyond me but some people are like that).
No idea about NC specifically but AIUI in most states as well as mailing them back you or your representative can deliver an absentee ballot to a polling station on election day or before that to an early voting location in those states that have them.
The details vary by state but here in NYS you can return an absentee ballot to any early voting location or polling station in your county. We’ve just requested absentee ballots and plan to return them to our nearest early voting location when they open on October 24th.
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.
Anecdote alert. Just been for a walk. Outside very middle class house, sprawling across a hedge a c12 foot home made banner yelling "YES TO INFORMAL CHILDCARE." I had no idea what that was, but it appears to be this.
Sweden worked (I still maintain its neighbours did better) because they listened to the Government advice.
As we can see in the UK, we don't. Sweden will never work here.
People on the whole did when we finally locked down. In fact, probably they went too much into hiding. And very little need for dobbing your neighbour in or the swat team kicking the doors in.
The problem is that it wasn't a sustainable policy and since then we have different rules every week.
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
The only group which changed from one candidate leading by phone to the other leading online was rich voters who went from Biden leading by phone to Trump leading online.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Some need to eat humble pie on this, not least Professor John Ashton who made the accusation to Kay Burley live on Sky this morning and to be fair she rebuked him and the interview soon concluded
I was one of the guilty. So here it is Boris Johnson was not in Italy last weekend, and he is the greatest post war Prime Minister. Is that OK?
NC polling should get really interesting. With Early Voting happening for so long and so many ballot requests the polling figures should soon start having a significant percentage who have actually voted.
The NC polls should get significantly more accurate closer to election 'day'
The plurality of North Carolina voters (45%) say they plan to vote in person on election day, 35% say they will vote early in person, and 20% plan to vote by mail.
This lot can't be correct, at least 1.8% - 2.6% of the electorate have already cast a mail-in ballot.
Edit: The hard floor on ballots already in is 1.74%.
Because each state has their own rules and pollsters have differing methodologies, some respondents in some states maybe excluded because pollsters aren't allowed to ask how people *HAVE* voted by mail it is possible that the polling might be flawed.
If people are being excluded who have voted by mail already that'll introduce a whopping Trump skew. Might ask Emerson about it directly.
Even if you have already voted you can still answer a hypothetical question about how you would vote, surely?
The poll filter might literally exclude people who have voted.
Different states have highly varying rules on what you can ask of people's vote and might well consider
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.
Sweden worked (I still maintain its neighbours did better) because they listened to the Government advice.
As we can see in the UK, we don't. Sweden will never work here.
It's not just that, Sweden has an already socially distanced country, culture and society. I'm not sure if you've ever been but I have a few times because I had to help build the old PS3 remote play app. Swedish society is nothing like as social as ours, people avoid each other at the best of times.
The same policies in a more densely populated and socially cohesive country like the UK would be a disaster whether or not people listened, the advice wouldn't have worked here.
However, that's not to say UK policy was adequate. It still isn't.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Some need to eat humble pie on this, not least Professor John Ashton who made the accusation to Kay Burley live on Sky this morning and to be fair she rebuked him and the interview soon concluded
I was one of the guilty. So here it is Boris Johnson was not in Italy last weekend, and he is the greatest post war Prime Minister. Is that OK?
You do not need to go over the top, and he will not be the greatest post war pm
Sweden worked (I still maintain its neighbours did better) because they listened to the Government advice.
As we can see in the UK, we don't. Sweden will never work here.
It's not just that, Sweden has an already socially distanced country, culture and society. I'm not sure if you've ever been but I have a few times because I had to help build the old PS3 remote play app. Swedish society is nothing like as social as ours, people avoid each other at the best of times.
The same policies in a more densely populated and socially cohesive country like the UK would be a disaster whether or not people listened, the advice wouldn't have worked here.
However, that's not to say UK policy was adequate. It still isn't.
I haven't been and that's very interesting. Thanks Max.
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.
Or even fewer. Of course Tory councillors are "less councillors", because most of them are pretty useless.
"Sweden has exposed the cruel folly of lockdown Sweden’s strategy was subjected to a global smear campaign, but now it’s showing results. Fraser Myers"
The funny bit, of course, is that in opinion polls in Sweden, people wish the government had gone with the German approach.
People don't like death. I wish we had gone with the German approach too. Not obvious why the country with 13th worst Covid death rate in the world should be the role model for the one with the 9th worst (5th and 3rd in Europe respectively). At least Germany comes in at a more respectable 50 position
I strongly suspect it's because the core driver is simply:
"I don't want this to be a thing."
Restrictions are a pain. The pandemic is scary. Both of those are only true if the pandemic is true and restrictions are needed. If there's any way to believe that these are not true, then people would like to take it.
We can rationalise anything. "Sweden" has become a magic word, which means "Restrictions aren't needed." You have to gloss over the restrictions involved in the Swedish setup, or any differences between countries that mean that the exact level of restrictions in one country might not be appropriate for another, and the death toll and economic impact sustained in Sweden. But that's easy to do.
Just dont discuss it. Find an echo-chamber where like-minded people will pick at anything they think might not fit, or reinforce rationalisation, or repeat that "Sweden means no restrictions and it works."
You do get some people who accept the differences and discuss that. The principle of "adopt a level of restrictions and stick to it" has some merit. It's just not what most of the "Sweden!" people believe is true.
And it is scary. It is a massive imposition. And if you don't grasp exponential growth and its danger, you can focus on extrapolating lines or denying that there's a problem at all. As the old question goes: If a patch of lily pads doubles in size every day, and takes 48 days to cover an entire pond, how many days does it take to cover half the pond?
If you don't instantly answer "47," you haven't got a grasp of exponential growth. "Hey, the current hospitalisation rate is fine, what's the problem with it going into exponential growth?" is such a staggering question when you've grasped exponential growth that it's hard to answer without swearing - but you get the Hannans and co asking it as a rhetorical question (meaning "Duh, there's obviously no problem, why are the scientists so stupid?"), and being retweeted energetically by more people falling for the fallacy "If many people say it, it must be true," who desperately want it to be true.
I'll bet if all of those on here who cite "Sweden" were to say what level of restrictions they favour, few would answer "Higher than we had here for the past month and a half - and don't lift them further again."
Despite that being the actual Swedish model (a level of restrictions that works - unlike the past six or seven weeks - and hold it there).
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.
Or even fewer. Of course Tory councillors are "less councillors", because most of them are pretty useless.
I know plenty of Tory councillors who work extremely hard, some also juggling work and family responsibilities as well, others giving up much of their retirement to do the role
One thing about the upsurge in cases, it should mean the Oxford trial phase 3 (placebo group we hope!) events are triggering off quicker than they otherwise might. A larger final events dataset would also be more statistically reliable.
Still likely to be absolutely tiny numbers, though.
France looks good for a trial base – lots of cases there (even though death rates remain, thankfully, very low)
You don't get into a p3 trial here unless you're a public facing worker where there'll be naturally higher infection rates (Bus drivers, police and so forth). I suppose they could have included big night out lovers amongst the criteria to be included, would probably have been frowned on though !
Geordie blondes would have been a particularly efficacious cohort
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
The only group which changed from one candidate leading by phone to the other leading online was rich voters who went from Biden leading by phone to Trump leading online.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
The overall numbers were Biden +10 in online polling and +12 in phone polling according to their own graphs.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
To all those opposed to tighter restrictions at the national level: Chris Grayling apparently agrees with you and so it is now a mathematical certainty that you are wrong.
"Sweden has exposed the cruel folly of lockdown Sweden’s strategy was subjected to a global smear campaign, but now it’s showing results. Fraser Myers"
The funny bit, of course, is that in opinion polls in Sweden, people wish the government had gone with the German approach.
People don't like death. I wish we had gone with the German approach too. Not obvious why the country with 13th worst Covid death rate in the world should be the role model for the one with the 9th worst (5th and 3rd in Europe respectively). At least Germany comes in at a more respectable 50 position
I strongly suspect it's because the core driver is simply:
"I don't want this to be a thing."
Restrictions are a pain. The pandemic is scary. Both of those are only true if the pandemic is true and restrictions are needed. If there's any way to believe that these are not true, then people would like to take it.
We can rationalise anything. "Sweden" has become a magic word, which means "Restrictions aren't needed." You have to gloss over the restrictions involved in the Swedish setup, or any differences between countries that mean that the exact level of restrictions in one country might not be appropriate for another, and the death toll and economic impact sustained in Sweden. But that's easy to do.
Just dont discuss it. Find an echo-chamber where like-minded people will pick at anything they think might not fit, or reinforce rationalisation, or repeat that "Sweden means no restrictions and it works."
You do get some people who accept the differences and discuss that. The principle of "adopt a level of restrictions and stick to it" has some merit. It's just not what most of the "Sweden!" people believe is true.
And it is scary. It is a massive imposition. And if you don't grasp exponential growth and its danger, you can focus on extrapolating lines or denying that there's a problem at all. As the old question goes: If a patch of lily pads doubles in size every day, and takes 48 days to cover an entire pond, how many days does it take to cover half the pond?
If you don't instantly answer "47," you haven't got a grasp of exponential growth. "Hey, the current hospitalisation rate is fine, what's the problem with it going into exponential growth?" is such a staggering question when you've grasped exponential growth that it's hard to answer without swearing - but you get the Hannans and co asking it as a rhetorical question (meaning "Duh, there's obviously no problem, why are the scientists so stupid?"), and being retweeted energetically by more people falling for the fallacy "If many people say it, it must be true," who desperately want it to be true.
I'll bet if all of those on here who cite "Sweden" were to say what level of restrictions they favour, few would answer "Higher than we had here for the past month and a half - and don't lift them further again."
Despite that being the actual Swedish model (a level of restrictions that works - unlike the past six or seven weeks - and hold it there).
My strong sense is that those who argue for lighter or stratified regulations are much less fearful of the virus than those who advocate for heavier lockdowns.
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
The only group which changed from one candidate leading by phone to the other leading online was rich voters who went from Biden leading by phone to Trump leading online.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
The overall numbers were Biden +10 in online polling and +12 in phone polling according to their own graphs.
The sample likely leaned Democrat for the survey comparing online and phone figures so the headline number is less significant than the basis of the research ie there are a lot of rich, high turnout voters who are shy Trump voters but can only be identified in online polls not phone polls
(Guardian) Czech prime minister Andrej Babis nominated a top epidemiologist to become health minister on Monday after the previous minister quit over a sharp rise in Covid-19 infections.
Roman Prymula, who helped lead the central European country’s response to the initial coronavirus outbreak in March, will replace Adam Vojtech, who quit on Monday after criticism over the surge in new cases following an easing of restrictions.
“Professor Prymula will have crisis management as his main task,” Babis told a news conference, adding that meant enforcing systems put in place already to tackle the pandemic.
He said on Twitter he had nominated Prymula to President Milos Zeman, who had promised to accept his appointment.
Prymula is widely seen as a straight talker. He once warned Czech’s that travel could be disrupted for two years because of the novel coronavirus, and has said daily cases could swell to 6,000-8,000 from around 1,000-3,000 now.
Before the start of the summer, the government lifted almost all restrictions imposed during the first wave of the pandemic. The rate of new coronavirus cases has grown at the second fastest rate in Europe in recent weeks...
I am curious to know why countries like Slovakia and Greece have done so well on Covid. Nearly one hundredth of the UK and Swedish death rate for Slovakia and one twentieth for Greece.
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.
Or even fewer. Of course Tory councillors are "less councillors", because most of them are pretty useless.
The local Tory County Councillor has been quiet as a dormant mouse since there last election. Now all of a sudden he's up and charging about on local County Council-related issues.
Of course the Greens winning seats in the District elections last year, and doing things, won't have anything whatsoever to do with it.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
You actually believe that the manager would take an interest in Johnson's trip to Italy when he was Foreign Minister because it was linked to Lebedev? Not only taken an interest, but remember that story several years later?
It would be very interesting to see the splits. My understanding from previous polls is that while White men continue to support the President at similar levels to 2016, White women have left him.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The whole idea is to damage the PM. And it will work because the correction/clarification tweet will get about 1% of the impressions as the initial incorrect claim.
In practice the States have done a good job of putting up a website listing all 111 candidates with videos and brief manifestos and have delivered to everyone a booklet with each candidate getting 2 pages. I've selected my 38. Just as well Guernsey has one of the highest recycling rates on the planet....
Sweden worked (I still maintain its neighbours did better) because they listened to the Government advice.
As we can see in the UK, we don't. Sweden will never work here.
It's not just that, Sweden has an already socially distanced country, culture and society. I'm not sure if you've ever been but I have a few times because I had to help build the old PS3 remote play app. Swedish society is nothing like as social as ours, people avoid each other at the best of times.
The same policies in a more densely populated and socially cohesive country like the UK would be a disaster whether or not people listened, the advice wouldn't have worked here.
However, that's not to say UK policy was adequate. It still isn't.
I haven't been and that's very interesting. Thanks Max.
Didn't realise you'd worked for Sony, that's cool
Yeah I left to go and work in the city, it was an interesting job but I was sick of the long hours for not a lot of money. I figured I could do the same long hours in the city and get paid a lot more for it.
"Sweden has exposed the cruel folly of lockdown Sweden’s strategy was subjected to a global smear campaign, but now it’s showing results. Fraser Myers"
The funny bit, of course, is that in opinion polls in Sweden, people wish the government had gone with the German approach.
People don't like death. I wish we had gone with the German approach too. Not obvious why the country with 13th worst Covid death rate in the world should be the role model for the one with the 9th worst (5th and 3rd in Europe respectively). At least Germany comes in at a more respectable 50 position
I strongly suspect it's because the core driver is simply:
"I don't want this to be a thing."
Restrictions are a pain. The pandemic is scary. Both of those are only true if the pandemic is true and restrictions are needed. If there's any way to believe that these are not true, then people would like to take it.
We can rationalise anything. "Sweden" has become a magic word, which means "Restrictions aren't needed." You have to gloss over the restrictions involved in the Swedish setup, or any differences between countries that mean that the exact level of restrictions in one country might not be appropriate for another, and the death toll and economic impact sustained in Sweden. But that's easy to do.
Just dont discuss it. Find an echo-chamber where like-minded people will pick at anything they think might not fit, or reinforce rationalisation, or repeat that "Sweden means no restrictions and it works."
You do get some people who accept the differences and discuss that. The principle of "adopt a level of restrictions and stick to it" has some merit. It's just not what most of the "Sweden!" people believe is true.
And it is scary. It is a massive imposition. And if you don't grasp exponential growth and its danger, you can focus on extrapolating lines or denying that there's a problem at all. As the old question goes: If a patch of lily pads doubles in size every day, and takes 48 days to cover an entire pond, how many days does it take to cover half the pond?
If you don't instantly answer "47," you haven't got a grasp of exponential growth. "Hey, the current hospitalisation rate is fine, what's the problem with it going into exponential growth?" is such a staggering question when you've grasped exponential growth that it's hard to answer without swearing - but you get the Hannans and co asking it as a rhetorical question (meaning "Duh, there's obviously no problem, why are the scientists so stupid?"), and being retweeted energetically by more people falling for the fallacy "If many people say it, it must be true," who desperately want it to be true.
I'll bet if all of those on here who cite "Sweden" were to say what level of restrictions they favour, few would answer "Higher than we had here for the past month and a half - and don't lift them further again."
Despite that being the actual Swedish model (a level of restrictions that works - unlike the past six or seven weeks - and hold it there).
My strong sense is that those who argue for lighter or stratified regulations are much less fearful of the virus than those who advocate for heavier lockdowns.
My sense is that they haven't understood the Swedish model. Stratified regulations would be totally at variance with it.
And I'm personally not very fearful of the virus. Oh, I wouldn't like to catch it - there's a chance of Long Covid, and of hospitalisation, but I've been a lot more scared of a lot of other things in my time. I do, however, grasp exponential growth pretty well, as well as the economic impact involved.
I think your strong sense has led you astray - found an answer that you feel is right. Have you considered there might be other reasons?
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.
The Tories lost 1,330 councillors last May
Did they all resign or pass away? We had no elections last May.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
The only group which changed from one candidate leading by phone to the other leading online was rich voters who went from Biden leading by phone to Trump leading online.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
The overall numbers were Biden +10 in online polling and +12 in phone polling according to their own graphs.
The sample likely leaned Democrat for the survey comparing online and phone figures so the headline number is less significant than the basis of the research ie there are a lot of rich, high turnout voters who are shy Trump voters but can only be identified in online polls not phone polls
I don't know what evidence you have for 'The sample likely leaned Democrat', but that wasn't why Anathingymebob posted it.
The point is that when there is shy voter syndrome (like with Brexit) there is often a big gap between phone and on-line polls. People are more likely to admit their true views to a computer than to a nice young lady.
That there is no big difference between phone and on-line with Morning Consult (or indeed other pollsters) indicates that while there may be a shy Trump (or shy Biden) effect, it is not likely to be large.
Sweden worked (I still maintain its neighbours did better) because they listened to the Government advice.
As we can see in the UK, we don't. Sweden will never work here.
It's not just that, Sweden has an already socially distanced country, culture and society. I'm not sure if you've ever been but I have a few times because I had to help build the old PS3 remote play app. Swedish society is nothing like as social as ours, people avoid each other at the best of times.
The same policies in a more densely populated and socially cohesive country like the UK would be a disaster whether or not people listened, the advice wouldn't have worked here.
However, that's not to say UK policy was adequate. It still isn't.
I haven't been and that's very interesting. Thanks Max.
Didn't realise you'd worked for Sony, that's cool
Yeah I left to go and work in the city, it was an interesting job but I was sick of the long hours for not a lot of money. I figured I could do the same long hours in the city and get paid a lot more for it.
You strike me as a hard worker, I am sure you do a superb job
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.
They could have spent two minutes looking back at their notes to find that the story was complete bollocks? He was meeting with the 22 committee when the alleged travel took place!
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Some need to eat humble pie on this
Who? Most people on here, including myself, were merely commenting on how much of a weird story the whole thing was.
I must admit I thought it was possible. There was a wolf this time; Johnson's reps were telling the truth!
Although if he did make the trip, and Perugia airport realises it shouldn’t have gone public, would things look any different?
I have missed today’s news, having been out walking in mountains where the big issue is whether or not real wolves are to be reintroduced. Is the UK in new lockdown yet?
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour Party
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.
The Tories lost 1,330 councillors last May
Did they all resign or pass away? We had no elections last May.
8,886 councillors were up for election last year when most English district and unitary councils had elections, many will not have elections next year.
If you live in London you did not have elections last year but you would have been the minority
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The whole idea is to damage the PM. And it will work because the correction/clarification tweet will get about 1% of the impressions as the initial incorrect claim.
It is almost as if the journalists know the details of some rather unwholesome story about our PM but are prevented, for some mysterious reason about which I could not possibly speculate (your honour), from sharing with the rest of us.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
You actually believe that the manager would take an interest in Johnson's trip to Italy when he was Foreign Minister because it was linked to Lebedev? Not only taken an interest, but remember that story several years later?
I expect that any major news story featuring his airport would be brought to his attention, it's standard practice in the private sector to monitor all news coverage of your business. I don't really care either way. I'm just trying to understand how they erroneously claimed that Johnson had recently used their airport, since it's quite a strange claim to have made if, as seems likely, it was untrue. Especially as their offered explanation is obviously made up.
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
The only group which changed from one candidate leading by phone to the other leading online was rich voters who went from Biden leading by phone to Trump leading online.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
The overall numbers were Biden +10 in online polling and +12 in phone polling according to their own graphs.
The sample likely leaned Democrat for the survey comparing online and phone figures so the headline number is less significant than the basis of the research ie there are a lot of rich, high turnout voters who are shy Trump voters but can only be identified in online polls not phone polls
I don't know what evidence you have for 'The sample likely leaned Democrat', but that wasn't why Anathingymebob posted it.
The point is that when there is shy voter syndrome (like with Brexit) there is often a big gap between phone and on-line polls. People are more likely to admit their true views to a computer than to a nice young lady.
That there is no big difference between phone and on-line with Morning Consult (or indeed other pollsters) indicates that while there may be a shy Trump (or shy Biden) effect, it is not likely to be large.
If you had looked at the research you would have seen that Trump does 10% better with rich voters online than by phone and rich voters have the highest turnout. That was the key finding.
Biden did 6% better with poor voters online than by phone but they have much lower turnout anyway, there was only a 1% difference for both candidates with middle income voters online compared to by phone
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
You actually believe that the manager would take an interest in Johnson's trip to Italy when he was Foreign Minister because it was linked to Lebedev? Not only taken an interest, but remember that story several years later?
I expect that any major news story featuring his airport would be brought to his attention, it's standard practice in the private sector to monitor all news coverage of your business. I don't really care either way. I'm just trying to understand how they erroneously claimed that Johnson had recently used their airport, since it's quite a strange claim to have made if, as seems likely, it was untrue. Especially as their offered explanation is obviously made up.
"As seems likely". You think there's still a chance the claim that he travelled was true? Just shows how damaging stories like this can be.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.
Maybe asking an MP or two? Loads of them had a meeting with him when he was supposedly in Italy. Not rush to publish something that seems highly unlikely just because they wanted it to be true.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.
But they did. There was the airport press release seeking plaudits for having seen both Blair and Johnson through their airport in recent weeks, and the airport employee who was positive he had seen Johnson recently but wasn’t sure quite when.
As further circumstantial evidence you have:
- the recorded flights of private jets both from and to the UK at around the relevant times;
- the recorded delay of the Monday flight from Perugia to Northoldt, coupled with the reported fact that Boris’s scheduled engagements with Patel for later that morning were cancelled at very short notice
- the strange difficulty Boris had in maintaining his WiFi connection on the Friday evening. One assumes the WiFi at where Boris should have been is rock solid.
Even if it’s all nonsense, you can’t blame journalist for piecing all these bits together.
Whats the scores on the doors today? My web browser is saying the numbers have been updated the dashboard but like yesterday only showing yesterday s.
4368 cases, 11 deaths, 204 hospital admissions in England, 1411 people hospitalised across all 4 nations.
Doing my best Alister Haines impression by carefully picking the dates for just the past few days, number of cases look flat, clearly no need for any restrictions.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.
But they did. There was the airport press release seeking plaudits for having seen both Blair and Johnson through their airport in recent weeks, and the airport employee who was positive he had seen Johnson recently but wasn’t sure quite when.
And the primary source for the press release? Probably that same employee.
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.
It's not common practice in the British press though. As I understand it the Perugia airport management confirmed the story with details of flight times before later saying it was a mistake, so some basic fact checking was carried out. And like I say, the version of the story I read was along the lines of "perugia Airport say Johnson travelled there, PM spokesperson says he didn't, this is all a bit mysterious" rather than reporting as fact that he went there. I don't think that is unreasonable, given Johnson is PM so there is a public interest in the story.
Comments
In truth, Johnson basically looks like a man in his late 50s who isn't that fit but isn't horrifically unhealthy with a range of underlying conditions either, and who came through a nasty illness earlier in the year. Which is exactly what he is.
It is possible that the polling might be flawed.
Also that plan to host Euro 2020/21 across lots of European cities may also get nixed.
474 spectators at Warwick races this afternoon and 1,000 on each of the three days at Newmarket later in the week.
It's easy to follow the protocols on a glorious afternoon when you can sit outside at your table and there's little or no indoor interaction with others. With the weather changing later this week it's going to be more of a challenge but Newmarket has acres of indoor space so 1,000 won't be the problem it would be at Plumpton for example.
Back in the days when I was mad, I attended Lingfield and remember watching a Class 6 Seller from the roof of the hospitality stand in a blizzard. I backed the winner, thank the Lord but with hindsight was a 7/2 winner worth hypothermia?
The fact is Newmarket can't survive on a 1,000 crowd limit - the cost of the biosecurity protocols are one thing but the "crowd" are going to be Owners and Annual Members - the former get a freebie for having a runner and the latter have already paid their sub so there's no new income coming in to the track.
Racecourses don't exist just on racing - they hold Conferences, exhibitions, weddings, Christmas parties and the like and the collapse of that income stream has hit them very hard.
Yet, to play Devil's Advocate a little, racecourses aren't rail operators. No one forces a racecourse to have a race meeting and part of me argues this "we've lost thousands of pounds but we want to keep racing" schtick needs to be called out. Two courses (Brighton and Worcester) have been mothballed and if I were running racing, I'd have concentrated on 20 tracks (including the all-weather venues) and held the meetings there while trying to support the others as much as possible.
One example - they re-opened Epsom Downs, spending a fortune on railing off public land and doing all the work for just one afternoon because the Derby and the Oaks HAD to be at Epsom. They didn't - they could have been at Ascot, Newmarket or Goodwood and they would still have been the same race. The Coronation Cup is apparently not that special because that went to Newmarket.
Some will end up not being used I guess (Why you'd request one then not vote is beyond me but some people are like that).
Anyway for all his many flaws I'd far rather have Tone (or any other PM in my living memory) in charge now than the current muppet.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/09/new-studies-confirm-weakening-of-the-gulf-stream-circulation-amoc/
I'm sure you'll still find people who claim that they aren't falsifiable though.
Les Ferdinand: Taking the knee in support of Black Lives Matter 'will not bring change' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54237179
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
The details vary by state but here in NYS you can return an absentee ballot to any early voting location or polling station in your county. We’ve just requested absentee ballots and plan to return them to our nearest early voting location when they open on October 24th.
As we can see in the UK, we don't. Sweden will never work here.
There was a wolf this time; Johnson's reps were telling the truth!
Irate yummy mummy power.
The government now u-turning before anyone aware there is an issue.
This is long overdue and time to unite the UK to fight this together
The problem is that it wasn't a sustainable policy and since then we have different rules every week.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
Different states have highly varying rules on what you can ask of people's vote and might well consider
Have you voted?
Yes.
How would you Vote?
As equivalent to asking how the person has voted.
No idea if relevent to NC.
The same policies in a more densely populated and socially cohesive country like the UK would be a disaster whether or not people listened, the advice wouldn't have worked here.
However, that's not to say UK policy was adequate. It still isn't.
Didn't realise you'd worked for Sony, that's cool
"I don't want this to be a thing."
Restrictions are a pain. The pandemic is scary. Both of those are only true if the pandemic is true and restrictions are needed. If there's any way to believe that these are not true, then people would like to take it.
We can rationalise anything. "Sweden" has become a magic word, which means "Restrictions aren't needed." You have to gloss over the restrictions involved in the Swedish setup, or any differences between countries that mean that the exact level of restrictions in one country might not be appropriate for another, and the death toll and economic impact sustained in Sweden. But that's easy to do.
Just dont discuss it. Find an echo-chamber where like-minded people will pick at anything they think might not fit, or reinforce rationalisation, or repeat that "Sweden means no restrictions and it works."
You do get some people who accept the differences and discuss that. The principle of "adopt a level of restrictions and stick to it" has some merit. It's just not what most of the "Sweden!" people believe is true.
And it is scary. It is a massive imposition. And if you don't grasp exponential growth and its danger, you can focus on extrapolating lines or denying that there's a problem at all. As the old question goes: If a patch of lily pads doubles in size every day, and takes 48 days to cover an entire pond, how many days does it take to cover half the pond?
If you don't instantly answer "47," you haven't got a grasp of exponential growth. "Hey, the current hospitalisation rate is fine, what's the problem with it going into exponential growth?" is such a staggering question when you've grasped exponential growth that it's hard to answer without swearing - but you get the Hannans and co asking it as a rhetorical question (meaning "Duh, there's obviously no problem, why are the scientists so stupid?"), and being retweeted energetically by more people falling for the fallacy "If many people say it, it must be true," who desperately want it to be true.
I'll bet if all of those on here who cite "Sweden" were to say what level of restrictions they favour, few would answer "Higher than we had here for the past month and a half - and don't lift them further again."
Despite that being the actual Swedish model (a level of restrictions that works - unlike the past six or seven weeks - and hold it there).
The overall numbers were Biden +10 in online polling and +12 in phone polling according to their own graphs.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-presidential-election-tracker/
The sample likely leaned Democrat for the survey comparing online and phone figures so the headline number is less significant than the basis of the research ie there are a lot of rich, high turnout voters who are shy Trump voters but can only be identified in online polls not phone polls
Czech prime minister Andrej Babis nominated a top epidemiologist to become health minister on Monday after the previous minister quit over a sharp rise in Covid-19 infections.
Roman Prymula, who helped lead the central European country’s response to the initial coronavirus outbreak in March, will replace Adam Vojtech, who quit on Monday after criticism over the surge in new cases following an easing of restrictions.
“Professor Prymula will have crisis management as his main task,” Babis told a news conference, adding that meant enforcing systems put in place already to tackle the pandemic.
He said on Twitter he had nominated Prymula to President Milos Zeman, who had promised to accept his appointment.
Prymula is widely seen as a straight talker. He once warned Czech’s that travel could be disrupted for two years because of the novel coronavirus, and has said daily cases could swell to 6,000-8,000 from around 1,000-3,000 now.
Before the start of the summer, the government lifted almost all restrictions imposed during the first wave of the pandemic. The rate of new coronavirus cases has grown at the second fastest rate in Europe in recent weeks...
Of course the Greens winning seats in the District elections last year, and doing things, won't have anything whatsoever to do with it.
It would be very interesting to see the splits. My understanding from previous polls is that while White men continue to support the President at similar levels to 2016, White women have left him.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1307040143916830720?s=20
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1307040608553500675?s=20
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1307042271125217282?s=20
In practice the States have done a good job of putting up a website listing all 111 candidates with videos and brief manifestos and have delivered to everyone a booklet with each candidate getting 2 pages. I've selected my 38. Just as well Guernsey has one of the highest recycling rates on the planet....
And I'm personally not very fearful of the virus. Oh, I wouldn't like to catch it - there's a chance of Long Covid, and of hospitalisation, but I've been a lot more scared of a lot of other things in my time. I do, however, grasp exponential growth pretty well, as well as the economic impact involved.
I think your strong sense has led you astray - found an answer that you feel is right. Have you considered there might be other reasons?
The point is that when there is shy voter syndrome (like with Brexit) there is often a big gap between phone and on-line polls. People are more likely to admit their true views to a computer than to a nice young lady.
That there is no big difference between phone and on-line with Morning Consult (or indeed other pollsters) indicates that while there may be a shy Trump (or shy Biden) effect, it is not likely to be large.
I have missed today’s news, having been out walking in mountains where the big issue is whether or not real wolves are to be reintroduced. Is the UK in new lockdown yet?
If you live in London you did not have elections last year but you would have been the minority
I don't really care either way. I'm just trying to understand how they erroneously claimed that Johnson had recently used their airport, since it's quite a strange claim to have made if, as seems likely, it was untrue. Especially as their offered explanation is obviously made up.
Biden did 6% better with poor voters online than by phone but they have much lower turnout anyway, there was only a 1% difference for both candidates with middle income voters online compared to by phone
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1308062767748915202?s=20
As further circumstantial evidence you have:
- the recorded flights of private jets both from and to the UK at around the relevant times;
- the recorded delay of the Monday flight from Perugia to Northoldt, coupled with the reported fact that Boris’s scheduled engagements with Patel for later that morning were cancelled at very short notice
- the strange difficulty Boris had in maintaining his WiFi connection on the Friday evening. One assumes the WiFi at where Boris should have been is rock solid.
Even if it’s all nonsense, you can’t blame journalist for piecing all these bits together.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will require constant refrigeration.
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1308040894436777984
Come on kids, THIS IS A BETTING SITE!!