Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
The worst part is that he's closer to the truth than the scientists making he decisions.
He's not really, I've spent a long weekend in Birmingham, and the country's in a de facto lockdown.
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
Yes, they've succeeded in killing off the economy and causing mass unemployment. What a great track record.
Max, there's no good options, just only damaging ones until we have a vaccine.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Nah, a number of recent National polls have put him about 5pts behind which is far from hopeless, especially as there have been some indications that the race is tighter in swing States. Biden is still pretty good value at 4/5 but it ain't done yet.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
Table service being mandatory is fine and limiting standing space to outdoor areas also seems like a good idea. What isn't a good idea is forcing pubs to ring the bell at 9:30pm and lose them their most profitable trading hours, drive people to off licences and supermarkets then to front rooms where we know transmission occurs. It's such an ill thought out policy and it's going to cost so many jobs and businesses. It's about the most anti-conservative policy that I've seen a supposedly conservative PM support.
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Anecdata alert: my brother, also a naturalized US citizen except he's in San Francisco, has been phone-banking (tele-canvassing in British terms) for Biden, mostly calling voters in Wisconsin and Nevada. He says that his positive response rate for Biden has shot up since the tax revelations broke.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
Yes. Lockdown 2.0 strikes me as one of those Not Happening Events that consume much debate oxygen from time to time. Perhaps we need a snappy title for "maintain distancing principally via guidelines and voluntarily according to personal risk assessment but with some law too albeit little policing until there is a vaccine which will hopefully be and is expected to be next summer". Because that's a bit of a mouthful.
The worst part is that he's closer to the truth than the scientists making he decisions.
He's not really, I've spent a long weekend in Birmingham, and the country's in a de facto lockdown.
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
Yes, they've succeeded in killing off the economy and causing mass unemployment. What a great track record.
Max, there's no good options, just only damaging ones until we have a vaccine.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
But there's so much low hanging fruit, where is the help to get people to isolate properly? At the moment it stands at 18% who fully isolate after a positive test.
Why are we still allowing people to walk off a plane from JFK, Delhi or Rio and just take them at their word they will isolate?
Why are we still using slow PCR testing when the WHO has just signed a deal for 120m reliable rapid tests which don't need a laboratory setting to process?
These are three areas of policy that will have little to no economic impact but will bring the infection rate down drastically if they are properly pursued. There is no need for economic doom, Italy and Germany are proving it, even Sweden is now.
I hope people (in general not on PB) aren't overreacting once again to the infamous "Tuesday figures" which are always worse than the other days of the week, and have been for about 6 months. It gets a bit tedious.
Well i am sure the media are explaining the situation correctly...has a quick check..nope...yes they talk about cases were much higher in March / April, but still using date of reporting for cases and deaths, etc. Same old bollocks.
On Radio 4 a few seconds ago the presenter said "There has been a sharp jump in coronovirus cases in the uk". Trouble is, listeners may conclude from this that there has been a sharp jump in the number of coronavirus cases in the UK.
The media cannot be innumerate to the degree they present as innumerate.
The reporting of it is utterly disgraceful, and has been throughout. It has caused me to stop watching the BBC – a trusted source yet the worst of them all.
No wonder most people assess their risk from covid as several orders of magnitude higher than their actual risk.
6 f##king months of this bollocks, every day. Surely as well as sending them all on a diversity course to stop them saying nitty gritty they could have done a couple of hours training on covid data.
From talking to some journalists - it seems they regard as number that "creates a story" as news. When you point out the issues with lying is stats, the response is "what is truth anyway?"
Note that the analysis pieces on the BBC avoid this, for example.
It goes some way to explaining how fake news stuff works in normal media - its a number, its a story....
I've long felt that there's a problem with "news", where that's defined to be what "creates a story". It substitutes clickbait for journalism. I wish more were concerned with truth as opposed to "news"...
I heard some idiot on the radio the other day arguing that COVID-19 is no more deadly than flu, and the interviewer never even challenged it because she was too busy trying to get a conservative party donor story angle instead!
I'm glad that PB contains a few people who are trying to see through the murk, using primary sources where possible, and who understand uncertainty.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
Ok. I hadn't realised there was an issue. Apologies.
You should have seen his tweets from March/April, he banned anyone who pointed out some of the bullshit maths he was using to justify his belief no lockdown was needed and Covid-19 would only kill a few thousand without a lockdown.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
Italy has shut completely those venues considered to be high risk, such as nightclubs, but everywhere else stays open. But they are perhaps lucky in not having such a drinking culture and any Italian who staggered out of a cafe or restaurant visibly drunk wouldn’t be able to show his face in that locality again for fear of shame.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
The worst part is that he's closer to the truth than the scientists making he decisions.
He's not really, I've spent a long weekend in Birmingham, and the country's in a de facto lockdown.
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
Yes, they've succeeded in killing off the economy and causing mass unemployment. What a great track record.
Max, there's no good options, just only damaging ones until we have a vaccine.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
But there's so much low hanging fruit, where is the help to get people to isolate properly? At the moment it stands at 18% who fully isolate after a positive test.
Why are we still allowing people to walk off a plane from JFK, Delhi or Rio and just take them at their word they will isolate?
Why are we still using slow PCR testing when the WHO has just signed a deal for 120m reliable rapid tests which don't need a laboratory setting to process?
These are three areas of policy that will have little to no economic impact but will bring the infection rate down drastically if they are properly pursued. There is no need for economic doom, Italy and Germany are proving it, even Sweden is now.
I believe that the 20 minute tests are being trialled/rolled out in this country in a slower, staged manner, to prevent a sudden "oh shit, they're not working" moment.
Mind you, there seems to a be a severe lack of enthusiasm for mass testing in some quarters -
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
Precisely. As it happens I was staying in London on Thursday evening when the rule came in. The restaurant we were at struggled a bit to get everyone served in time (they'd rung to suggest we should come earlier than booked), but they managed it and will now simplify their offering slightly to make it easier. As we walked back, the pubs, which would normally have been busy after 10pm, seemed to have closed without incident and the place was quiet (this was the Farringdon/Holborn area). I'm sure that in Soho and around Oxford Circus it would have been a bit different, but they are not representative of the country.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
Now you are being daft. The choice isn't between this measure and doing nothing, it's trying to find the least damaging set of measures which reduce the spread. If you do nothing, those jobs are definitely going, either because people will vote with their feet or more likely that the government will be forced to close those bars, restaurants and pubs* completely, as has happened here for a while and in lots of other places around the world.
* Restaurants aren't so badly hit by 10pm closing, in general.
Doing nothing is absolutely an option, in Germany and Italy they've done nothing and they've made it work. The fault is that our testing system isn't fit for purpose and we have absolutely no follow up on whether people are isolating after a positive result. The study that showed only 18% of people actually isolate is absolutely damning. No support is given to people who need to isolate and it means 82% of people who test positive are still interacting with the wider community. We have other ways of bringing the infection rate down that aren't economically damaging, let's pursue those first. Pubs and restaurants accounted for 3% of new transmissions in week before the 10pm closing time was introduced. We're talking absolutely minute numbers here because it's not even the whole 3%, it's a some portion of the 3%.
Travel, not isolating people properly and testing are all areas that have low hanging fruit and yet the chumps making policy seem intent on taking the joy out of life and putting a million jobs at risk.
As for your comment on restaurants I have actually spoken to a friend who runs a restaurant, his dining capacity had fallen from 320 pre COVID to 140 with distancing and now just 70 with the 10pm closing time due to last orders at being at 9pm meaning there is only one dinner sitting. So no, it is hurting restaurants as well. The whole thing is a disaster and it is causing unnecessary economic damage and severe mental stress on business owners and their employees who don't know what the future holds for them any more.
Having spent three weeks in Germany/Italy and got used to a regime where everyone but everyone observes the mask/distancing/sanitation rules, and any business of any size goes out of its way to check that this is the case, it is going to be interesting returning to the UK to see whether things are any different from back in August.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
Italy has shut completely those venues considered to be high risk, such as nightclubs, but everywhere else stays open. But they are perhaps lucky in not having such a drinking culture and any Italian who staggered out of a cafe or restaurant visibly drunk wouldn’t be able to show his face in that locality again for fear of shame.
Does this mean the whole concept of "shame" is a good thing? Because in this country whenever anyone talks about it they seem to be saying the idea of shame is a bad thing per se.
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Anecdata alert: my brother, also a naturalized US citizen except he's in San Francisco, has been phone-banking (tele-canvassing in British terms) for Biden, mostly calling voters in Wisconsin and Nevada. He says that his positive response rate for Biden has shot up since the tax revelations broke.
Does his accent help or hinder when canvassing US voters?
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
It's total meltdown!
Oh no - a "pie and mash capitalist".
The ultimate in hypocrisy.
I would say the ultimate in hypocrisy was my friend, the titled one who self declared as a Marxist-Leninist. While living off property rents.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
Precisely. As it happens I was staying in London on Thursday evening when the rule came in. The restaurant we were at struggled a bit to get everyone served in time (they'd rung to suggest we should come earlier than booked), but they managed it and will now simplify their offering slightly to make it easier. As we walked back, the pubs, which would normally have been busy after 10pm, seemed to have closed without incident and the place was quiet (this was the Farringdon/Holborn area). I'm sure that in Soho and around Oxford Circus it would have been a bit different, but they are not representative of the country.
The new normal about eating in restaurants for me was having to use QR codes to access the restaurant's menu (oh and check in with the test and trace app.)
Those who don't have a smartphone are going to be left behind even more.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
That's an excellent point.
We assume that what we see is the typical, rather than the exception.
Always good to look at his old tweets a few months later
I mean, fair play to the lad for not deleting anything, and his moxie has propelled him from a 75 follower twitter account to serious clout but by christ, this is a person who confidentially predicted less than 7000 people would die in the UK as a worse case.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
"Survivorship Bias".
That is very you, that way of putting it, I have to say.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
Italy has shut completely those venues considered to be high risk, such as nightclubs, but everywhere else stays open. But they are perhaps lucky in not having such a drinking culture and any Italian who staggered out of a cafe or restaurant visibly drunk wouldn’t be able to show his face in that locality again for fear of shame.
Does this mean the whole concept of "shame" is a good thing? Because in this country whenever anyone talks about it they seem to be saying the idea of shame is a bad thing per se.
Personally I think it’s a bad thing. Contrary to the impression of happy-go-lucky people that you get the first time you go there, Italy is actually quite an uptight and heavily conformist society with all sorts of unwritten social rules that everyone is expected to follow. Tourists don’t notice this so much because they aren’t held to the same standards. Society doesn’t pride or tolerate individuality and eccentricity to the same extent that we do in the UK, and you’re only really allowed to be eccentric if you have already earned notoriety and respect, e.g. the eccentric professor.
It’s just that, now not wearing a mask has become socially unacceptable, that feature of society has turned into a temporary advantage.
Mask wearing outside in the street isn’t a requirement, but in Bergamo last week there were a few times when I got my mask out because I found myself the only person not wearing one and I was attracting icy stares. Having a dog people do tend to assume you are local, and I am forever being asked for directions and suchlike.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
Precisely. As it happens I was staying in London on Thursday evening when the rule came in. The restaurant we were at struggled a bit to get everyone served in time (they'd rung to suggest we should come earlier than booked), but they managed it and will now simplify their offering slightly to make it easier. As we walked back, the pubs, which would normally have been busy after 10pm, seemed to have closed without incident and the place was quiet (this was the Farringdon/Holborn area). I'm sure that in Soho and around Oxford Circus it would have been a bit different, but they are not representative of the country.
The new normal about eating in restaurants for me was having to use QR codes to access the restaurant's menu (oh and check in with the test and trace app.)
Those who don't have a smartphone are going to be left behind even more.
I managed to use the NHS QR app today when seeing fellow ex City executives in the City
However the bar staff were able to name the drinks without us having to use a QR code.
The worst part is that he's closer to the truth than the scientists making he decisions.
He's not really, I've spent a long weekend in Birmingham, and the country's in a de facto lockdown.
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
Yes, they've succeeded in killing off the economy and causing mass unemployment. What a great track record.
Max, there's no good options, just only damaging ones until we have a vaccine.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
But there's so much low hanging fruit, where is the help to get people to isolate properly? At the moment it stands at 18% who fully isolate after a positive test.
Why are we still allowing people to walk off a plane from JFK, Delhi or Rio and just take them at their word they will isolate?
Why are we still using slow PCR testing when the WHO has just signed a deal for 120m reliable rapid tests which don't need a laboratory setting to process?
These are three areas of policy that will have little to no economic impact but will bring the infection rate down drastically if they are properly pursued. There is no need for economic doom, Italy and Germany are proving it, even Sweden is now.
I believe that the 20 minute tests are being trialled/rolled out in this country in a slower, staged manner, to prevent a sudden "oh shit, they're not working" moment.
Mind you, there seems to a be a severe lack of enthusiasm for mass testing in some quarters -
Rapid antigen tests are pretty unlikely to give false positives. (They will, on the other hand, produce plenty of false negatives but almost always when someone is not infectious.)
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Anecdata alert: my brother, also a naturalized US citizen except he's in San Francisco, has been phone-banking (tele-canvassing in British terms) for Biden, mostly calling voters in Wisconsin and Nevada. He says that his positive response rate for Biden has shot up since the tax revelations broke.
Good to hear. Suckergate would have had an impact too I would have thought.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
That's an excellent point.
We assume that what we see is the typical, rather than the exception.
Multiply that by news organisations standard behaviour - if lt bleeds....
I think I have told this one before.
During the First Gulf War, CNN and other news outfits complained. The Pentagon was releasing few if any videos of smart bombs *missing*. This, for those who don't remember, was the war when they first used laser guided bomb as a standard weapon. One occasion, famously, one aircraft dropped a bomb to break a whole through the massive roof of a building. A second bomb was deliberately dropped through the hole made by the first, to collapse the whole building.
Anyway, the Pentagon responded - if they released all the videos of the misses, the media would only play those. Which, given the 80% hit rate, would be a distortion.
The head of CNN news was interviewed, fuming. It was outrageous to suggest the media was biased. If the tapes were properly provided, CNN would do the right thing.
Show 1 of the hits and then all the misses.
That is quite literally what he said they would do.....
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
"Survivorship Bias".
That is very you, that way of putting it, I have to say.
Technical term for an evidential fallacy, not me! Classic instance is an ancient Greek anecdote where A says to B "It is obvious the gods are good to us, because look at all these votive tablets in this temple thanking the gods for answering their prayers and saving them from shipwreck" and B replying that the guys who drown don't get to put tablets up.
The worst part is that he's closer to the truth than the scientists making he decisions.
He's not really, I've spent a long weekend in Birmingham, and the country's in a de facto lockdown.
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
Yes, they've succeeded in killing off the economy and causing mass unemployment. What a great track record.
Max, there's no good options, just only damaging ones until we have a vaccine.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
But there's so much low hanging fruit, where is the help to get people to isolate properly? At the moment it stands at 18% who fully isolate after a positive test.
Why are we still allowing people to walk off a plane from JFK, Delhi or Rio and just take them at their word they will isolate?
Why are we still using slow PCR testing when the WHO has just signed a deal for 120m reliable rapid tests which don't need a laboratory setting to process?
These are three areas of policy that will have little to no economic impact but will bring the infection rate down drastically if they are properly pursued. There is no need for economic doom, Italy and Germany are proving it, even Sweden is now.
Agreed, with a couple of nitpicks. First, the self-isolation figures are for the period up to mid August, when the £500 payment came in for poorer households. (But. I agree - for example some of those contact tracers sitting idle could have been helping distribute essentials to those forced to isolate, etc.) Second, PCR would remain useful even with mass antigen testing; they perform different roles. Antigen tests ought to be ubiquitous, with the recognition that they are a bit less accurate (ideal at eg schools or airports); PCR can be used where it’s essential to know with 99.9% confidence if virus is present.
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Nah, a number of recent National polls have put him about 5pts behind which is far from hopeless, especially as there have been some indications that the race is tighter in swing States. Biden is still pretty good value at 4/5 but it ain't done yet.
No not quite yet. 3/11 is the day of reckoning. My one nagging concern is apolitical shallow type voters who have got addicted to the Trump Show.
The worst part is that he's closer to the truth than the scientists making he decisions.
He's not really, I've spent a long weekend in Birmingham, and the country's in a de facto lockdown.
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
Yes, they've succeeded in killing off the economy and causing mass unemployment. What a great track record.
Max, there's no good options, just only damaging ones until we have a vaccine.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
But there's so much low hanging fruit, where is the help to get people to isolate properly? At the moment it stands at 18% who fully isolate after a positive test.
Why are we still allowing people to walk off a plane from JFK, Delhi or Rio and just take them at their word they will isolate?
Why are we still using slow PCR testing when the WHO has just signed a deal for 120m reliable rapid tests which don't need a laboratory setting to process?
These are three areas of policy that will have little to no economic impact but will bring the infection rate down drastically if they are properly pursued. There is no need for economic doom, Italy and Germany are proving it, even Sweden is now.
I believe that the 20 minute tests are being trialled/rolled out in this country in a slower, staged manner, to prevent a sudden "oh shit, they're not working" moment.
Mind you, there seems to a be a severe lack of enthusiasm for mass testing in some quarters -
Rapid antigen tests are pretty unlikely to give false positives. (They will, on the other hand, produce plenty of false negatives but almost always when someone is not infectious.)
Very often, rather than almost always, I think ? Not that it matters when they would be in most cases an alternative to no test at all.
I'm looking at shots of the inside of the debate hall, and those seats in the audience are not socially spaced 6 feet, and it looks like from eyeballing that there are more than 70 of them. Maybe they'll space them at the last minute.
Nevermind the drug tests, have they been covid tested?
A while ago the Economist wrote a provocative article arguing that audits should no longer be a legal requirement.
I have slowly come round to the idea.
Surely the better argument is to ban auditors from doing any other work for that company whilst they are the official auditors?
It's not that they act corruptly. It's just the stakes are too binary in what they are required to do. Issuing a qualified audit will destroy a company. The stakes are too high. But too often the potential reasons for qualification is not evidence of wrongdoing or financial shortcomings per se. It is lack of assurance given by poor controls or lack of sufficient evidence provided to provide assurance of figures in the accounts. But control weaknesses do not in themselves mean the figures are wrong. Just that there is the potential for them being wrong.
So the standard audits don't provide the assurance to investors that they can expect.
The worst part is that he's closer to the truth than the scientists making he decisions.
He's not really, I've spent a long weekend in Birmingham, and the country's in a de facto lockdown.
New Street Station, Grand Central, and the Bullring were all deader than a dead thing.
99% mask enforcement for those who were out.
The eggheads not a prediction during their statement did its job.
Yes, they've succeeded in killing off the economy and causing mass unemployment. What a great track record.
Max, there's no good options, just only damaging ones until we have a vaccine.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
But there's so much low hanging fruit, where is the help to get people to isolate properly? At the moment it stands at 18% who fully isolate after a positive test.
Why are we still allowing people to walk off a plane from JFK, Delhi or Rio and just take them at their word they will isolate?
Why are we still using slow PCR testing when the WHO has just signed a deal for 120m reliable rapid tests which don't need a laboratory setting to process?
These are three areas of policy that will have little to no economic impact but will bring the infection rate down drastically if they are properly pursued. There is no need for economic doom, Italy and Germany are proving it, even Sweden is now.
As I am back on Thursday I did my passenger locator form at gov.uk today, once I had found it; clearly the idea of putting a box with a direct link from the home page would have made things too easy.
I was expecting to have to provide details of my hotels’ contact details with dates, to at least raise the possibility that someone might be able to check, but all I had to declare was the countries I had stayed in during the last 14 days, from a drop down menu. Unless they phone me up and cross examine me, it’s all based on honesty.
It will be interesting to see if anyone checks that I have done it, on return.
labour and the SNP: Boris is grossly incompetent so.....er......we will probably give him a further six months of unscrutinised executive power to do what he wants by fiat.
Thing is, you hold individuals in higher regard than I do. If you allow people to do what they want with their property, lack of good taste and poor choices and poor quality of workmanship works to the detriment of everyone in the communty and the environment in general.
Some of my neighbours in our village take your view and moan like heck when a conservation or planning officer refuses them permission to proceed with some abomination or another. In contrast, I see these officers as arbiters of good taste.
It's an interesting discussion. I tend to Philip's view on this, partly because I like diversity and think it's interesting if someone wants to make their home looks like a giant snail or whatever. Those London squares where every house looks exactly like every other house look boring, in my view. That's just a difference in taste, and I'm not sure either of us should be in a position to insist.
But also, socialist though I am on economic matters, I'd like people to be free at a personal level. It seems a pity that the debate about huge inequalities of wealth - which seem to me an abomination, especially if inherited - spills over into differences in taste. I don't see why you shouldn't dress any way you want, sleep with whichever consenting adult(s) you like, eat whatever food you prefer, and decorate your home as you fancy (all subject to obvious general rules on not inciting to hatred, etc.). It's a different issue from the left/right argument on wealth.
So all we have to do to terminate your local government career is move into your ward, submit our giant snail proposal 🐌 and luxuriate in your fulsome support, taking care to boast about it to everyone we meet...
Go on then, I might lose my seat but it'll be fun!
A while ago the Economist wrote a provocative article arguing that audits should no longer be a legal requirement.
I have slowly come round to the idea.
I have a free-market suggestion, which I don't think I've seen anywhere else. The idea is to go back to basics: what is an audit for, and who is it for? Obviously the answer is that it is for the shareholders (so that they know that their company's accounts give a true and fair view), and creditors and other stakeholders (who want to know is the company is at risk of going bust). The problem is that agent-principal one: those for whom the audit is being carried out have no effective redress against the auditor. On the other hand, you can't expect an auditor, charging a fixed fee in a competitive market, to offer an unlimited guarantee to all and sundry that they haven't screwed up and missed something big.
So: let the market decide. When the company engages the auditor, it can choose a level of auditor liability, with the creditors (and maybe shareholders) able to sue the auditor up to that limit if things go wrong. A small company could get a guarantee commensurate with its size, and the auditor would correspondingly not have to check every little insignificant detail. A dodgy company would not be able to get more than tuppence-ha'pennies guarantee, which would give an excellent signal to the market. A very solid blue-chip could get a big guarantee - but the auditor would then have a very big incentive to make sure they had done a really thorough job.
This would give a virtuous circle effect: to get credibility, companies would have to convince the auditors that they were a safe bet, and to be convinced the auditors would have to do a good job.
(I am of course available at very reasonable consultancy rates to develop this idea further!)
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
It's total meltdown!
I'm not a Tory, as you may have noticed, but there are some highly competent Tories like Gove - why don't they make him Coronavirus Czar with full authority and responsibility, and let Johnson concentrate on being Chief Cheerer-Upper, rather than this detail stuff which he clearly does not enjoy?
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Anecdata alert: my brother, also a naturalized US citizen except he's in San Francisco, has been phone-banking (tele-canvassing in British terms) for Biden, mostly calling voters in Wisconsin and Nevada. He says that his positive response rate for Biden has shot up since the tax revelations broke.
Does his accent help or hinder when canvassing US voters?
He tells me generally helps, and that he's even been told he's the "right" kind of immigrant. Of course he doesn't tell those people that he lives in San Francisco and is married to an African-American man!
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
It's total meltdown!
I'm not a Tory, as you may have noticed, but there are some highly competent Tories like Gove - why don't they make him Coronavirus Czar with full authority and responsibility, and let Johnson concentrate on being Chief Cheerer-Upper, rather than this detail stuff which he clearly does not enjoy?
I don’t sense he is cheering anyone up any more? Seeing such a pillock in charge is just depressing everyone even more.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
It's total meltdown!
I'm not a Tory, as you may have noticed, but there are some highly competent Tories like Gove - why don't they make him Coronavirus Czar with full authority and responsibility, and let Johnson concentrate on being Chief Cheerer-Upper, rather than this detail stuff which he clearly does not enjoy?
Yep - I said some time ago that there should be a Minister for seeing Covid through, and another given the Health Secretary gig in a caretaker capacity. My thought was that Hancock would want to see it through, with potentially Jeremy Hunt given the caretaker NHS role. I don't see any evidence that Gove is especially competent (or especially incompetent of course).
A while ago the Economist wrote a provocative article arguing that audits should no longer be a legal requirement.
I have slowly come round to the idea.
I have a free-market suggestion, which I don't think I've seen anywhere else. The idea is to go back to basics: what is an audit for, and who is it for? Obviously the answer is that it is for the shareholders (so that they know that their company's accounts give a true and fair view), and creditors and other stakeholders (who want to know is the company is at risk of going bust). The problem is that agent-principal one: those for whom the audit is being carried out have no effective redress against the auditor. On the other hand, you can't expect an auditor, charging a fixed fee in a competitive market, to offer an unlimited guarantee to all and sundry that they haven't screwed up and missed something big.
So: let the market decide. When the company engages the auditor, it can choose a level of auditor liability, with the creditors (and maybe shareholders) able to sue the auditor up to that limit if things go wrong. A small company could get a guarantee commensurate with its size, and the auditor would correspondingly not have to check every little insignificant detail. A dodgy company would not be able to get more than tuppence-ha'pennies guarantee, which would give an excellent signal to the market. A very solid blue-chip could get a big guarantee - but the auditor would then have a very big incentive to make sure they had done a really thorough job.
This would give a virtuous circle effect: to get credibility, companies would have to convince the auditors that they were a safe bet, and to be convinced the auditors would have to do a good job.
(I am of course available at very reasonable consultancy rates to develop this idea further!)
Caparo v. Dickman is one of those cases that is seared in my memory, you can't overturn that.
A while ago the Economist wrote a provocative article arguing that audits should no longer be a legal requirement.
I have slowly come round to the idea.
Surely the better argument is to ban auditors from doing any other work for that company whilst they are the official auditors?
It's not that they act corruptly. It's just the stakes are too binary in what they are required to do. Issuing a qualified audit will destroy a company. The stakes are too high. But too often the potential reasons for qualification is not evidence of wrongdoing or financial shortcomings per se. It is lack of assurance given by poor controls or lack of sufficient evidence provided to provide assurance of figures in the accounts. But control weaknesses do not in themselves mean the figures are wrong. Just that there is the potential for them being wrong.
So the standard audits don't provide the assurance to investors that they can expect.
Particularly since producing a qualified audit has such high stakes - it guarantees legal action unless it is utterly, trivially, obviously true.
A while ago the Economist wrote a provocative article arguing that audits should no longer be a legal requirement.
I have slowly come round to the idea.
I have a free-market suggestion, which I don't think I've seen anywhere else. The idea is to go back to basics: what is an audit for, and who is it for? Obviously the answer is that it is for the shareholders (so that they know that their company's accounts give a true and fair view), and creditors and other stakeholders (who want to know is the company is at risk of going bust). The problem is that agent-principal one: those for whom the audit is being carried out have no effective redress against the auditor. On the other hand, you can't expect an auditor, charging a fixed fee in a competitive market, to offer an unlimited guarantee to all and sundry that they haven't screwed up and missed something big.
So: let the market decide. When the company engages the auditor, it can choose a level of auditor liability, with the creditors (and maybe shareholders) able to sue the auditor up to that limit if things go wrong. A small company could get a guarantee commensurate with its size, and the auditor would correspondingly not have to check every little insignificant detail. A dodgy company would not be able to get more than tuppence-ha'pennies guarantee, which would give an excellent signal to the market. A very solid blue-chip could get a big guarantee - but the auditor would then have a very big incentive to make sure they had done a really thorough job.
This would give a virtuous circle effect: to get credibility, companies would have to convince the auditors that they were a safe bet, and to be convinced the auditors would have to do a good job.
(I am of course available at very reasonable consultancy rates to develop this idea further!)
Caparo v. Dickman is one of those cases that is seared in my memory, you can't overturn that.
Interesting case, on looking it up. Dickman clearly cocked it up.
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Anecdata alert: my brother, also a naturalized US citizen except he's in San Francisco, has been phone-banking (tele-canvassing in British terms) for Biden, mostly calling voters in Wisconsin and Nevada. He says that his positive response rate for Biden has shot up since the tax revelations broke.
Does his accent help or hinder when canvassing US voters?
He tells me generally helps, and that he's even been told he's the "right" kind of immigrant. Of course he doesn't tell those people that he lives in San Francisco and is married to an African-American man!
That's hilarious. I'd be tempted to tell Trump voters that I was a San Franciscan gay man in an interracial marriage, just for the giggles.
Agreed, with a couple of nitpicks. First, the self-isolation figures are for the period up to mid August, when the £500 payment came in for poorer households. (But. I agree - for example some of those contact tracers sitting idle could have been helping distribute essentials to those forced to isolate, etc.) Second, PCR would remain useful even with mass antigen testing; they perform different roles. Antigen tests ought to be ubiquitous, with the recognition that they are a bit less accurate (ideal at eg schools or airports); PCR can be used where it’s essential to know with 99.9% confidence if virus is present.
Exactly. The UK is examining essentially every testing option. The idea that we are stuck on PCR testing is nonsense, the UK government will buy and use anything that works. Antigen tests are most useful for screening, you will still want PCR testing for high-risk scenarios, or to confirm tests from antigen test screening.
Unusually for this chaotic capricious government, its closing stuff at 10pm policy does appear to be being copied around the world
I believe some other countries/regions did something similar before we did, but, yes, you are right, it is a measure which others are taking.
I seem to be in a minority in thinking it's actually very sensible. A lot of the bad outbreaks around the world have been traced back to bars and nightclubs, and you have to have led a very sheltered life not to understand that as the night goes on the socialising becomes, err, less distanced (and with more shouting, and with less caution). The fact that there's a crowd at Oxford Circus just after 10pm doesn't mean it's a bad policy, and not does the fact that some people might go to someone's home and keep drinking. It's all about the numbers and the overall statistical effect.
Yeah fuck all of those people who depend on actually working in restaurants, bars and pubs. I mean they don't really need jobs do they?
I don't agree with the 10pm rule (which seems to make things worse, rather than better), but crowded bars where everyone is yelling, nightclubs and karaoke would all seem to be high risk activities.
...seems to make things worse because of survivorship bias; the photos show the people who decide to hang on and party in the street, not the possibly greater number who have quietly mooched off home.
"Survivorship Bias".
That is very you, that way of putting it, I have to say.
Technical term for an evidential fallacy, not me! Classic instance is an ancient Greek anecdote where A says to B "It is obvious the gods are good to us, because look at all these votive tablets in this temple thanking the gods for answering their prayers and saving them from shipwreck" and B replying that the guys who drown don't get to put tablets up.
Close relation to "history is written by the winners".
Needs a miracle. If his polling deficit is not cut by this time next week his betfair price will collapse imo.
Anecdata alert: my brother, also a naturalized US citizen except he's in San Francisco, has been phone-banking (tele-canvassing in British terms) for Biden, mostly calling voters in Wisconsin and Nevada. He says that his positive response rate for Biden has shot up since the tax revelations broke.
Does his accent help or hinder when canvassing US voters?
He tells me generally helps, and that he's even been told he's the "right" kind of immigrant. Of course he doesn't tell those people that he lives in San Francisco and is married to an African-American man!
That's hilarious. I'd be tempted to tell Trump voters that I was a San Franciscan gay man in an interracial marriage, just for the giggles.
I suspect that you can get locked up for these sorts of narrowing down. We all need to become non-localised persons of undetermined gender with undefined partnerships. The good news is that Joe definitely isn't all over that. The bad news is he's still Joe.
A 2-point lead with Likely voters becomes a 4-point lead with Leaners. All we know is that it's a sample of 1314 registered voters.
On then to the State polls:
Some better results for Trump from Susquehanna in Wisconsin and Arizona but these are for our friends in the Center for American Greatness so a bucket of salt required in my view.
They aren't on RCP but @HYUFD posted a fascinating Alaska poll showing Trump leading 47-46. Trump won by 14 in 2016 so this is a 7% swing to Biden and if you're looking for an upset this might be the place.
Trump won North Dakota by 36 in 2016 but now leads by 19 so that's an 8.5% swing to Biden. However, in Illinois where Clinton won by 15, Biden is up by 13 (53-40) so a 1% swing to Biden.
Again, we are seeing Biden piling up votes in Red states he has little chance of winning (Alaska aside). I wonder if the closeness of the national polls is indicative of this not that it helps Biden much in terms of EC votes.
On the Stodge master map, I've moved NH into the Blue camp from TCTC and Alaska from Red to TCTC. I'm at 273-140 to Biden with 125 TCTC.
My final thought is IF Trump wins, we can add Susquehanna to the list of "gold standard" pollsters along with Rasmussen and Trafalgar.
We are approaching 100 deaths a day, which was when we locked down originally
We definitely aren't.
If the cases and deaths continue to increase, another lockdown is inevitable
No, I don't think another lockdown along the lines of March 23rd would be ordered. The current restrictions cannot be described as anything like lockdown.
We have better understanding of transmission, social distancing and mask wearing are now the norm, restaurants, churches, shops, businesses, health and educational establishments all now have reasonable protocols etc. We are in a much better place in terms of preparation for a less draconian approach.
This is all true, and yet with Boris and Wormtongue in charge we can rule nothing out. Both of them are absolutely clueless.
I agree and I say this as a working class Conservative
It's total meltdown!
I'm not a Tory, as you may have noticed, but there are some highly competent Tories like Gove - why don't they make him Coronavirus Czar with full authority and responsibility, and let Johnson concentrate on being Chief Cheerer-Upper, rather than this detail stuff which he clearly does not enjoy?
Gove has the job of negotiating the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. So he's not available.
Comments
Let the pubs stay open as previously, let's have proper checks on rules eg masks, table service and don't allow people to gather on the streets
As a compromise close pubs at 11.30 with last orders at 11. Most drinkers will normally be gone by then
And we can have a simple rule for Boris to explain!
If Texas flips blue those spreadbets become very juicy! Its goodbye Donald.
I know I hide it well but I'm one of Boris Johnson's fiercest critics and he's screwed up lots but here it's a case of either screwing the economy or tens of thousands of extra deaths, it's not a simple choice to make.
FWIW I think lots of extra needless deaths ultimately screws the economy anyway.
Why are we still allowing people to walk off a plane from JFK, Delhi or Rio and just take them at their word they will isolate?
Why are we still using slow PCR testing when the WHO has just signed a deal for 120m reliable rapid tests which don't need a laboratory setting to process?
These are three areas of policy that will have little to no economic impact but will bring the infection rate down drastically if they are properly pursued. There is no need for economic doom, Italy and Germany are proving it, even Sweden is now.
I heard some idiot on the radio the other day arguing that COVID-19 is no more deadly than flu, and the interviewer never even challenged it because she was too busy trying to get a conservative party donor story angle instead!
I'm glad that PB contains a few people who are trying to see through the murk, using primary sources where possible, and who understand uncertainty.
--AS
Please don't share his posts.
BBC News - First local Covid restrictions for north Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-54346608
Good job its not like this in England GRRRR
How is Drakeford getting on with sorting out the single occupancy household being allowed access to an 'extended household' in these situations?
Here's one or two
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1252953611870576640
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1252969221983739904
https://twitter.com/AlistairHaimes/status/1252969748096139264
Sadly the stupid and gullible believed him.
The ultimate in hypocrisy.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1272625988514562052
Mind you, there seems to a be a severe lack of enthusiasm for mass testing in some quarters -
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3482
Those who don't have a smartphone are going to be left behind even more.
https://twitter.com/TBraithwaite/status/1310987775676739585
We assume that what we see is the typical, rather than the exception.
That is very you, that way of putting it, I have to say.
It’s just that, now not wearing a mask has become socially unacceptable, that feature of society has turned into a temporary advantage.
Mask wearing outside in the street isn’t a requirement, but in Bergamo last week there were a few times when I got my mask out because I found myself the only person not wearing one and I was attracting icy stares. Having a dog people do tend to assume you are local, and I am forever being asked for directions and suchlike.
However the bar staff were able to name the drinks without us having to use a QR code.
I have slowly come round to the idea.
I used to work for EY. I left over 6 years due to my own ethical challenges wrt working for them.
I think I have told this one before.
During the First Gulf War, CNN and other news outfits complained. The Pentagon was releasing few if any videos of smart bombs *missing*. This, for those who don't remember, was the war when they first used laser guided bomb as a standard weapon. One occasion, famously, one aircraft dropped a bomb to break a whole through the massive roof of a building. A second bomb was deliberately dropped through the hole made by the first, to collapse the whole building.
Anyway, the Pentagon responded - if they released all the videos of the misses, the media would only play those. Which, given the 80% hit rate, would be a distortion.
The head of CNN news was interviewed, fuming. It was outrageous to suggest the media was biased. If the tapes were properly provided, CNN would do the right thing.
Show 1 of the hits and then all the misses.
That is quite literally what he said they would do.....
First, the self-isolation figures are for the period up to mid August, when the £500 payment came in for poorer households. (But. I agree - for example some of those contact tracers sitting idle could have been helping distribute essentials to those forced to isolate, etc.)
Second, PCR would remain useful even with mass antigen testing; they perform different roles. Antigen tests ought to be ubiquitous, with the recognition that they are a bit less accurate (ideal at eg schools or airports); PCR can be used where it’s essential to know with 99.9% confidence if virus is present.
Not that it matters when they would be in most cases an alternative to no test at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSdQ9O7kCUk
So the standard audits don't provide the assurance to investors that they can expect.
Personally, I'd like the auditors to be rotated and selected by independents or non-execs only, at worst.
Any idiot can audit - and far many more could do a better job than the Big4 who are often best mates with the CEO/CFO.
The fraud is always (eventually) discovered. The culprit(s) will be incredibly obvious.
I was expecting to have to provide details of my hotels’ contact details with dates, to at least raise the possibility that someone might be able to check, but all I had to declare was the countries I had stayed in during the last 14 days, from a drop down menu. Unless they phone me up and cross examine me, it’s all based on honesty.
It will be interesting to see if anyone checks that I have done it, on return.
So: let the market decide. When the company engages the auditor, it can choose a level of auditor liability, with the creditors (and maybe shareholders) able to sue the auditor up to that limit if things go wrong. A small company could get a guarantee commensurate with its size, and the auditor would correspondingly not have to check every little insignificant detail. A dodgy company would not be able to get more than tuppence-ha'pennies guarantee, which would give an excellent signal to the market. A very solid blue-chip could get a big guarantee - but the auditor would then have a very big incentive to make sure they had done a really thorough job.
This would give a virtuous circle effect: to get credibility, companies would have to convince the auditors that they were a safe bet, and to be convinced the auditors would have to do a good job.
(I am of course available at very reasonable consultancy rates to develop this idea further!)
I think it's time for us to admit something rather embarrassing.
Shareholders don't want corporate malfeasance broadcast. If it is, the share price will collapse, and they will be unable to sell their shares.
If they have been fooled by management lies, then they want the people they sell the shares to to also be fooled.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1311003317254991877?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1311003785783894025?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1311004136318656512?s=20
A plethora of state polling from the US again this evening but I'll start with the one national poll from Harvard/Harris.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/518600-biden-holds-narrow-lead-over-trump-ahead-of-first-debate-poll?amp&__twitter_impression=true
A 2-point lead with Likely voters becomes a 4-point lead with Leaners. All we know is that it's a sample of 1314 registered voters.
On then to the State polls:
Some better results for Trump from Susquehanna in Wisconsin and Arizona but these are for our friends in the Center for American Greatness so a bucket of salt required in my view.
https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/28/trump-biden-in-statistical-dead-heat-in-wisconsin/
Quinnipiac gives Biden a 50-47 lead in Georgia:
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/ga/ga09292020_gwko66.pdf
1125 Likely voters with an MoE of 2.9%.
I've not heard of UMass Lowell but they've entered the fray with some interesting polling:
In Texas, Trump leads 50-46 on a sample of 822 Likely voters with an MoE of 4.3%:
https://www.uml.edu/docs/2020-Texas-Sept-Topline_tcm18-330588.pdf
In North Carolina, Trump leads 49-48 on a sample of 921 Likely voters and an MoE of 4.1%
https://www.uml.edu/docs/2020-NC-Sept-Topline_tcm18-330590.pdf
In New Hampshire, Biden leads 53-44 on a sample of 657 Likely voters and an MoE of 4.6%
https://www.uml.edu/docs/2020-NH-Sept-Topline_tcm18-330589.pdf
They aren't on RCP but @HYUFD posted a fascinating Alaska poll showing Trump leading 47-46. Trump won by 14 in 2016 so this is a 7% swing to Biden and if you're looking for an upset this might be the place.
Trump won North Dakota by 36 in 2016 but now leads by 19 so that's an 8.5% swing to Biden. However, in Illinois where Clinton won by 15, Biden is up by 13 (53-40) so a 1% swing to Biden.
Again, we are seeing Biden piling up votes in Red states he has little chance of winning (Alaska aside). I wonder if the closeness of the national polls is indicative of this not that it helps Biden much in terms of EC votes.
On the Stodge master map, I've moved NH into the Blue camp from TCTC and Alaska from Red to TCTC. I'm at 273-140 to Biden with 125 TCTC.
My final thought is IF Trump wins, we can add Susquehanna to the list of "gold standard" pollsters along with Rasmussen and Trafalgar.
The Tories have lost this debate
I'm calling BS on this one.
State Audit Board is the answer. You can't trust the private sector on this one. You need intelligent disinterested public servants.