I'm not sure the courts are going to come to Trump's rescue.
...
“Neither group contends that the new deadlines established by the district court would violate the constitutional rights of any of their members,” the appeals court said.
Sounds like the sort of judges and reasoning that might appeal to a certain Gorsuch should it go any higher...
Right, they might put their thumbs on the scale in a genuinely contested case like Bush vs Gore, but why would you gamble a highly-respected lifetime job to help Trump? Stealing the election for him in plain sight significantly increases the risk that your head will end up on the end of a pike, and entrenched authoritarian rulers with street militias aren't necessarily great news for judges.
I mean, if you *really love* Trump you might do it, but Reagan-era or HW-era judges aren't really Trump's core demographic.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
But he doesn't really say that, does he. He says the models can be wrong, and did get it wrong in the past. He then says that models will have been updated, so that they probably won't be wrong in exactly the same way. At what point does he say that it's "basically impossible"?
I'm not sure the courts are going to come to Trump's rescue.
...
“Neither group contends that the new deadlines established by the district court would violate the constitutional rights of any of their members,” the appeals court said.
Sounds like the sort of judges and reasoning that might appeal to a certain Gorsuch should it go any higher...
Right, they might put their thumbs on the scale in a genuinely contested case like Bush vs Gore, but why would you gamble a highly-respected lifetime job to help Trump? Stealing the election for him in plain sight significantly increases the risk that your head will end up on the end of a pike, and entrenched authoritarian rulers with street militias aren't necessarily great news for judges.
I mean, if you *really love* Trump you might do it, but Reagan-era or HW-era judges aren't really Trump's core demographic.
And Gorusch has shown himself - while definitely on the right of the court - has shown a rather independent streak:
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
But he doesn't really say that, does he. He says the models can be wrong, and did get it wrong in the past. He then says that models will have been updated, so that they probably won't be wrong in exactly the same way. At what point does he say that it's "basically impossible"?
Or are you talking about Nate Silver's mob?
Sorry, I should have linked the tweet, I thought the tweet was showing the headline. (Maybe they changed the headline?):
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Ahhh... But if 25% shots come in twice in a row, that's like a 7.5% chance.
So, really Biden is a 92.5% chance.
(Says Robert ducking because someone is going to take this argument seriously...)
The tweet from the Associated Press was a bit odd, saying that Biden had pretty much already won Wisconsin thanks to the decision to extend the time that postal votes can be counted. The precise phrase was "handing Democrats a win".
The tweet from the Associated Press was a bit odd, saying that Biden had pretty much already won Wisconsin thanks to the decision to extend the time that postal votes can be counted. The precise phrase was "handing Democrats a win".
The tweet from the Associated Press was a bit odd, saying that Biden had pretty much already won Wisconsin thanks to the decision to extend the time that postal votes can be counted. The precise phrase was "handing Democrats a win".
I think it meant 'handing the Democrats a legal win', not necessarily the electoral win.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
But he doesn't really say that, does he. He says the models can be wrong, and did get it wrong in the past. He then says that models will have been updated, so that they probably won't be wrong in exactly the same way. At what point does he say that it's "basically impossible"?
Or are you talking about Nate Silver's mob?
Sorry, I should have linked the tweet, I thought the tweet was showing the headline. (Maybe they changed the headline?):
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
But he doesn't really say that, does he. He says the models can be wrong, and did get it wrong in the past. He then says that models will have been updated, so that they probably won't be wrong in exactly the same way. At what point does he say that it's "basically impossible"?
Or are you talking about Nate Silver's mob?
Sorry, I should have linked the tweet, I thought the tweet was showing the headline. (Maybe they changed the headline?):
We could do sanctuary cities, but with surplus cruise ships. Refugees bob around in international waters near a reasonably lucrative market until the ship has developed a sufficient self-sustaining economy to be a clear revenue earner, then its residents should be able to buy some land and get permission from a government to live on it.
His focus group vid has had 1m views in six hours.
Luntz thinks it was so bad it will put people off voting. Which is exactly what Trump wanted. Job done.
I'm a bit baffled by all the faux outrage, it's not as if Trump suddenly acted out of character. The House of Commons has had similarly bad tempered debates without everyone proclaiming the death of democracy.
It’s a shame that the ‘undecided’ voter who got the line of the night is probably going to be exposed as a Dem plant.
We could do sanctuary cities, but with surplus cruise ships. Refugees bob around in international waters near a reasonably lucrative market until the ship has developed a sufficient self-sustaining economy to be a clear revenue earner, then its residents should be able to buy some land and get permission from a government to live on it.
International waters? I expect when I get back home there’ll still be a sheaf of empty cruise ships bobbing about offshore, and there are further batches in Weymouth and Torbay. It isn’t far to swim.
... In an overdispersed regime, identifying transmission events (someone infected someone else) is more important than identifying infected individuals. Consider an infected person and their 20 forward contacts—people they met since they got infected. Let’s say we test 10 of them with a cheap, rapid test and get our results back in an hour or two. This isn’t a great way to determine exactly who is sick out of that 10, because our test will miss some positives, but that’s fine for our purposes. If everyone is negative, we can act as if nobody is infected, because the test is pretty good at finding negatives. However, the moment we find a few transmissions, we know we may have a super-spreader event, and we can tell all 20 people to assume they are positive and to self-isolate—if there are one or two transmissions, there are likely more, exactly because of the clustering behavior. Depending on age and other factors, we can test those people individually using PCR tests, which can pinpoint who is infected, or ask them all to wait it out....
We discuss the implications for airborne transmission in these ventilation modes and the impacts of other factors important to air movement in buildings. In particular, we show that a significant amount of bio-aerosol expelled during exhalation can remain airborne and be carried around the building by the ventilation flow. Since carbon dioxide is also exhaled and carried by the ventilation flow we propose that concentration levels of CO2 can be used to indicate the potential presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the air, and that high levels should trigger remedial action to reduce the risk of infection.
Get a cheap CO2 meter off Amazon, take it around your office or restaurant, if you find high levels anywhere fix your ventilation.
We could do sanctuary cities, but with surplus cruise ships. Refugees bob around in international waters near a reasonably lucrative market until the ship has developed a sufficient self-sustaining economy to be a clear revenue earner, then its residents should be able to buy some land and get permission from a government to live on it.
International waters? I expect when I get back home there’ll still be a sheaf of empty cruise ships bobbing about offshore, and there are further batches in Weymouth and Torbay. It isn’t far to swim.
The benefit of international waters is that you can set up a legal regime that maximizes economic growth, imagine lots of little floating Hong Kongs, full of refugee hustlers on the make.
Glad to see the government have decided to treat people like they are cattle. As with Trump's worst excesses this will just make it easier for other parties to appeal to the basic decency that is still left in some Tory voters.
... In an overdispersed regime, identifying transmission events (someone infected someone else) is more important than identifying infected individuals. Consider an infected person and their 20 forward contacts—people they met since they got infected. Let’s say we test 10 of them with a cheap, rapid test and get our results back in an hour or two. This isn’t a great way to determine exactly who is sick out of that 10, because our test will miss some positives, but that’s fine for our purposes. If everyone is negative, we can act as if nobody is infected, because the test is pretty good at finding negatives. However, the moment we find a few transmissions, we know we may have a super-spreader event, and we can tell all 20 people to assume they are positive and to self-isolate—if there are one or two transmissions, there are likely more, exactly because of the clustering behavior. Depending on age and other factors, we can test those people individually using PCR tests, which can pinpoint who is infected, or ask them all to wait it out....
It's a fascinating theory and well told. Is it correct though?
Thats a great article. Once again, The Atlantic covers the virus very well and without sensation. The bit on the importance of backward tracing is particularly worth a read.
Not only is backward tracing effective in disease suppression, it can usefully inform policy at to what restrictions are likely to work.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
... In an overdispersed regime, identifying transmission events (someone infected someone else) is more important than identifying infected individuals. Consider an infected person and their 20 forward contacts—people they met since they got infected. Let’s say we test 10 of them with a cheap, rapid test and get our results back in an hour or two. This isn’t a great way to determine exactly who is sick out of that 10, because our test will miss some positives, but that’s fine for our purposes. If everyone is negative, we can act as if nobody is infected, because the test is pretty good at finding negatives. However, the moment we find a few transmissions, we know we may have a super-spreader event, and we can tell all 20 people to assume they are positive and to self-isolate—if there are one or two transmissions, there are likely more, exactly because of the clustering behavior. Depending on age and other factors, we can test those people individually using PCR tests, which can pinpoint who is infected, or ask them all to wait it out....
I've been going on about this for months now. We haven't focused sufficiently on how people actually catch it and what the risk vectors are. We use sledgehammers instead of scalpels because we don't know what the risks are. If the risk area in a pub is in fact the toilets because of poor ventilation the solution is not to close the pub. Is being 1m or 2m distant from someone as you pass them in the street relevant or is it more important that you spend 10 minutes in a queue together because social distancing has stopped the normal flow of human contacts? Where are the risks? Until we know we will not beat this thing.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
I guess it might also be journalistic convention. All stories are required to follow a conceptual template, and they only have templates for "nail-biting photo finish" or "foregone conclusion".
In this race I guess the media narrative is soon going to flip from the former to the latter, and it'll be interesting to see if the narrative flip affects the betting markets.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
To say that inane and innumerate journalists have been a huge problem this year, would be something of an understatement.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
To say that inane and innumerate journalists have been a huge problem this year, would be something of an understatement.
In all of this when public enquiries are announced the role of UK journalists should be an integral part of it
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
Conservative Focus group expert warns the government to stop listening to focus groups at the moment as the public are living in "unreality", totally out of touch with the economic disaster coming and so effectively biased towards the lockdown strategy. Ministers must start telling the public the bleak, awful truth of what has been done to economy and get them prepared for the pain that is coming.
We have to learn to live with it because "the chances of the cavalry arriving with millions of vaccine shots before the money runs out look slim."
Number 10 ally warns Boris Johnson's draconian approach will come back to haunt him James Frayne says Rishi Sunak should be used more to be 'honest with public' about risks facing economy and jobs
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
What I would like to know is who 'shopped' him
My guess is that some idiot put the picture up on their social media account without realising that it was even a problem.
Is the correlation between having social media accounts and being an idiot spurious? Now there is an interesting mathematical problem. The instant nature of it certainly seems to rob many of the power of thought.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
If it is a case of "classical liberal arts innumeracy", why on earth are they publishing an article about the chances of winning/losing an election. It would be like me publishing a newspaper article on the relevance of the Canterbury Tales to life in modern Kenya.
Conservative Focus group expert warns the government to stop listening to focus groups at the moment as the public are living in "unreality", totally out of touch with the economic disaster coming and so effectively biased towards the lockdown strategy. Ministers must start telling the public the bleak, awful truth of what has been done to economy and get them prepared for the pain that is coming.
We have to learn to live with it because "the chances of the cavalry arriving with millions of vaccine shots before the money runs out look slim."
Number 10 ally warns Boris Johnson's draconian approach will come back to haunt him James Frayne says Rishi Sunak should be used more to be 'honest with public' about risks facing economy and jobs
The irony that many seem to miss is that if the public remain out of touch with the idea there's an economic catastrophe, then an economic catastrophe becomes less likely not more likely.
This downturn is not because of structural flaws in the economy that have been exposed, like most recessions are, but because of a temporary health scare.
Much of economic theory falsely assumes perfect information but the reality is that people act with their own knowledge as they perceive it. A recession is aggrevated because people lose confidence so don't go out spending their money, so businesses lay off staff and it becomes a vicious circle.
If people are in denial about the effects on the economy then people can keep spending, businesses can keep staff employed and the effects may not end up as bad.
A 'get back to normal' effort during a pandemic isn't going to work as people will lose confidence at that point so the economic effects would be a self-fulfilling prophecy at that point.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
I guess it might also be journalistic convention. All stories are required to follow a conceptual template, and they only have templates for "nail-biting photo finish" or "foregone conclusion".
In this race I guess the media narrative is soon going to flip from the former to the latter, and it'll be interesting to see if the narrative flip affects the betting markets.
I think that the risks here are ones that should never arise in a mature democracy. The risk that a significant number of votes are never counted, that people who have the right are not allowed to vote in the first place, that so many are barred from voting as a result of past criminal records, that people are discouraged by the lack of polling stations etc etc. It makes me cautious. The lack of interest in the United States in free and fair elections is troubling.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
I'm sticking with my theory that Trump is Corbyn; 2016 was 2017 (but the Electoral College turned it into a victory) and that 2020 is 2019.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
All of the good prediction models do account for between-state-correlation.
Glad to see the government have decided to treat people like they are cattle. As with Trump's worst excesses this will just make it easier for other parties to appeal to the basic decency that is still left in some Tory voters.
Pretty sure it wouldn’t be legal to dump cattle on prison hulks.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
I guess it might also be journalistic convention. All stories are required to follow a conceptual template, and they only have templates for "nail-biting photo finish" or "foregone conclusion".
In this race I guess the media narrative is soon going to flip from the former to the latter, and it'll be interesting to see if the narrative flip affects the betting markets.
I think that the risks here are ones that should never arise in a mature democracy. The risk that a significant number of votes are never counted, that people who have the right are not allowed to vote in the first place, that so many are barred from voting as a result of past criminal records, that people are discouraged by the lack of polling stations etc etc. It makes me cautious. The lack of interest in the United States in free and fair elections is troubling.
I wouldn't say it was necessarily a lack of interest. Just people don't ultimately know how to challenge it. Because this is an issue where the US is a prisoner of its written constitution, which uses the practices and capabilities of the eighteenth century to fix what can happen in the 21st century. All with huge 'safeguards' built in to prevent change.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
All of the good prediction models do account for between-state-correlation.
Well they say they do but its tricky which is why bookmakers who know what they are doing don't allow it.
Glad to see the government have decided to treat people like they are cattle. As with Trump's worst excesses this will just make it easier for other parties to appeal to the basic decency that is still left in some Tory voters.
Pretty sure it wouldn’t be legal to dump cattle on prison hulks.
It's obvious this is one of Cummings's little side games. Leak more and more weird and wonderful ways to deal with the migrants crossing the Channel and then sit back and watch Labour denounce it and chalk one up for the Permanent Culture War Strategy.
Every day we get another 'bat-people' idea.
I do wish he would concentrate on building the next generation of AI superforecasting engines and leave day to day politics alone.
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
The increase in social distancing that is now necessary is a general requirement, not a universal one. This distinction is not widely appreciated, and never has been since the start of all this. The government has no interest in turning us into a police state and, I`d argue, neither should it. The important thing is that social distancing is increased on aggregate. That can, and is, being achieved without poking long lenses through windows or flying drones over moors and saying "ooh they are breaking the rules let`s lynch the fuckers".
Sure, you can argue that these requirements are in law, which is why I floated the idea a couple of days ago that they are really guidelines masquerading as laws, intended to achieve a overall effect rather than a means to persecute individuals.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
I guess it might also be journalistic convention. All stories are required to follow a conceptual template, and they only have templates for "nail-biting photo finish" or "foregone conclusion".
In this race I guess the media narrative is soon going to flip from the former to the latter, and it'll be interesting to see if the narrative flip affects the betting markets.
I think that the risks here are ones that should never arise in a mature democracy. The risk that a significant number of votes are never counted, that people who have the right are not allowed to vote in the first place, that so many are barred from voting as a result of past criminal records, that people are discouraged by the lack of polling stations etc etc. It makes me cautious. The lack of interest in the United States in free and fair elections is troubling.
I wouldn't say it was necessarily a lack of interest. Just people don't ultimately know how to challenge it. Because this is an issue where the US is a prisoner of its written constitution, which uses the practices and capabilities of the eighteenth century to fix what can happen in the 21st century. All with huge 'safeguards' built in to prevent change.
Actually the word "interest" is wrong. It is much more serious. Many, particularly but not exclusively in the Republican Party, work hard to prevent a free and fair election. They regard preventing people not like them from voting as legitimate. And modern accoutrements, such as mechanical voting, seem to increase the risks of that 18th century rule book, not decrease them.
The closest we got to that in this country was the ignored people that Cummings/Cambridge Analytica found who rarely voted but were persuaded to do so on one occasion. And people still go on about how unfair and illegitimate that was. But it is still a pale shadow of what we see in the US.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
If it is a case of "classical liberal arts innumeracy", why on earth are they publishing an article about the chances of winning/losing an election. It would be like me publishing a newspaper article on the relevance of the Canterbury Tales to life in modern Kenya.
Reckon the good folk of modern-day Kenya would be enthralled by stories of cuckolding and rasping farts.... Publish and be damned.
... In an overdispersed regime, identifying transmission events (someone infected someone else) is more important than identifying infected individuals. Consider an infected person and their 20 forward contacts—people they met since they got infected. Let’s say we test 10 of them with a cheap, rapid test and get our results back in an hour or two. This isn’t a great way to determine exactly who is sick out of that 10, because our test will miss some positives, but that’s fine for our purposes. If everyone is negative, we can act as if nobody is infected, because the test is pretty good at finding negatives. However, the moment we find a few transmissions, we know we may have a super-spreader event, and we can tell all 20 people to assume they are positive and to self-isolate—if there are one or two transmissions, there are likely more, exactly because of the clustering behavior. Depending on age and other factors, we can test those people individually using PCR tests, which can pinpoint who is infected, or ask them all to wait it out....
I've thought for the last months (as someone who isn't an epidemiologist, but does include probabilistic processes in their expertise) that overdispersion wasn't being taken properly into account. Most obviously in the continuous SIR/SEIR models that do not capture nondeterminism, but also in the random ensemble models because the long tail is difficult to estimate. Indeed, easy to underestimate.
I think overdispersion explains some of the phenomena we are seeing: sudden "taking off" in case numbers that doesn't entirely coincide with changes in behaviour, localized outbreaks, and even a little of the difference between outcomes in different countries (having said that, the larger the number of cases the less that can be attributed to bad luck, unless the tails are extraordinarily heavy). A lot of lay intuition will be wrong because of this: the article's argument about testing that you quote is one of those counter-intuitive consequences.
I'm unconvinced that most epidemiologists have a proper understanding of this, let alone the more generalist scientists advising policy, but perhaps those who are proper mathematicians will be getting it right.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
If it is a case of "classical liberal arts innumeracy", why on earth are they publishing an article about the chances of winning/losing an election. It would be like me publishing a newspaper article on the relevance of the Canterbury Tales to life in modern Kenya.
Reckon the good folk of modern-day Kenya would be enthralled by stories of cuckolding and rasping farts.... Publish and be damned.
MarqueeMark: Clifden Nonpareil spotted and photographed in my village last week. (Not by me unfortunately.) Is that rare?
You can say that but it adds to the Cummings narrative of one rule for us and another one for them
As far as I am concerned, lock the scabby anti-Semite in jail and throw away the key, rules are rules, and the former Leader of the Opposition should know better than to put eight friends in mortal danger.
That said, compared to the Cummings breach it barely registers on the scale, whilst Cummings' escapade, by comparison was off the scale.
Glad to see the government have decided to treat people like they are cattle. As with Trump's worst excesses this will just make it easier for other parties to appeal to the basic decency that is still left in some Tory voters.
Pretty sure it wouldn’t be legal to dump cattle on prison hulks.
Apart from anything else, using disused ferries and cruise ships as internment hulks seems to be nailed on for a covid plague ship.
You can say that but it adds to the Cummings narrative of one rule for us and another one for them
As far as I am concerned, lock the scabby anti-Semite in jail and throw away the key, rules are rules, and the former Leader of the Opposition should know better than to put eight friends in mortal danger.
That said, compared to the Cummings breach it barely registers on the scale, whilst Cummings' escapade, by comparison was off the scale.
Are you sure? I don`t think you really mean that, "friends in mortal danger" FFS.
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
The increase in social distancing that is now necessary is a general requirement, not a universal one. This distinction is not widely appreciated, and never has been since the start of all this. The government has no interest in turning us into a police state and, I`d argue, neither should it. The important thing is that social distancing is increased on aggregate. That can, and is, being achieved without poking long lenses through windows or flying drones over moors and saying "ooh they are breaking the rules let`s lynch the fuckers".
Sure, you can argue that these requirements are in law, which is why I floated the idea a couple of days ago that they are really guidelines masquerading as laws, intended to achieve a overall effect rather than a means to persecute individuals.
Hence I care neither about Corbyn nor Cummings.
This would not feel to be a strong argument to anyone who has been fined for a breach, instructed by a policeman to stop sitting on a park bench or, especially for students, imprisoned by a security guard by a threat to inform the police if you go outside your door.
There are thousands of pages of actual law, and even more thousands of pages from every quarter, official and less official, of guidance. Sadly to suggest the law is merely a mask is not the case.
The bright spot is that the law is so extensive and badly drafted - sometimes actually meaningless - that it will discourage some police officers from over exerting themselves in futile exercises.
Glad to see the government have decided to treat people like they are cattle. As with Trump's worst excesses this will just make it easier for other parties to appeal to the basic decency that is still left in some Tory voters.
Pretty sure it wouldn’t be legal to dump cattle on prison hulks.
Apart from anything else, using disused ferries and cruise ships as internment hulks seems to be nailed on for a covid plague ship.
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
The increase in social distancing that is now necessary is a general requirement, not a universal one. This distinction is not widely appreciated, and never has been since the start of all this. The government has no interest in turning us into a police state and, I`d argue, neither should it. The important thing is that social distancing is increased on aggregate. That can, and is, being achieved without poking long lenses through windows or flying drones over moors and saying "ooh they are breaking the rules let`s lynch the fuckers".
Sure, you can argue that these requirements are in law, which is why I floated the idea a couple of days ago that they are really guidelines masquerading as laws, intended to achieve a overall effect rather than a means to persecute individuals.
Glad to see the government have decided to treat people like they are cattle. As with Trump's worst excesses this will just make it easier for other parties to appeal to the basic decency that is still left in some Tory voters.
Pretty sure it wouldn’t be legal to dump cattle on prison hulks.
Apart from anything else, using disused ferries and cruise ships as internment hulks seems to be nailed on for a covid plague ship.
You think the Faragists are bothered?
This entire exercise bears no relation to reality. It won't happen. But millions of potential and actual Tory voters will give it general assent.
Meanwhile the actual and current scandalous behaviour of the Home Office to migrants and asylum seekers goes almost without comment.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
I'm sticking with my theory that Trump is Corbyn; 2016 was 2017 (but the Electoral College turned it into a victory) and that 2020 is 2019.
Biden is no Boris!
P.S. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean that as a campaigner Johnson is peerless.
"Thrown under a bus" seems to be the favoured Brexit metaphor, crushing: business, Northern Ireland, farmers, ERG, car manufacturers, young people, Sunak maybe.
It seems everyone get thrown under the bus except Cummings, Gove and Johnson.
Glad to see the government have decided to treat people like they are cattle. As with Trump's worst excesses this will just make it easier for other parties to appeal to the basic decency that is still left in some Tory voters.
Pretty sure it wouldn’t be legal to dump cattle on prison hulks.
Apart from anything else, using disused ferries and cruise ships as internment hulks seems to be nailed on for a covid plague ship.
You think the Faragists are bothered?
As the boat people are generally young and fit, I suspect mortality would be very low. The staff operating it and visitors for assessment purposes however may well be at significant risk.
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
The increase in social distancing that is now necessary is a general requirement, not a universal one. This distinction is not widely appreciated, and never has been since the start of all this. The government has no interest in turning us into a police state and, I`d argue, neither should it. The important thing is that social distancing is increased on aggregate. That can, and is, being achieved without poking long lenses through windows or flying drones over moors and saying "ooh they are breaking the rules let`s lynch the fuckers".
Sure, you can argue that these requirements are in law, which is why I floated the idea a couple of days ago that they are really guidelines masquerading as laws, intended to achieve a overall effect rather than a means to persecute individuals.
Hence I care neither about Corbyn nor Cummings.
I think that there are 2 separate things there. These are not guidelines, they are laws and they are capable of being enforced (well, they would be if we had a working criminal justice system but we currently don't). The purpose of the laws is to influence behaviours and they will have achieved their objective if the vast majority comply with them.
A simply analogy is speeding. Speeding is a breach of the law but in practice it is rarely prosecuted (I can't help feeling that the majority who are caught really should be charged with driving without due care and attention). But the bigger picture is that we have these laws to moderate behaviour and reduce risk. If having a 20mph limit outside a school means everyone is doing less than 30 then, on one view, they have achieved their purpose. Doesn't stop the person caught doing 30 from being prosecuted though.
The virus is growing in England, spreading across the country and from young to older people. The new interventions are effective however in limiting the rate of increase:
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
The increase in social distancing that is now necessary is a general requirement, not a universal one. This distinction is not widely appreciated, and never has been since the start of all this. The government has no interest in turning us into a police state and, I`d argue, neither should it. The important thing is that social distancing is increased on aggregate. That can, and is, being achieved without poking long lenses through windows or flying drones over moors and saying "ooh they are breaking the rules let`s lynch the fuckers".
Sure, you can argue that these requirements are in law, which is why I floated the idea a couple of days ago that they are really guidelines masquerading as laws, intended to achieve a overall effect rather than a means to persecute individuals.
Hence I care neither about Corbyn nor Cummings.
Good post.
Thank you Topping.
I`ve felt this throughout. The government strategy has got the "nudge unit" written all over it. I`m frustrated that others can`t see the wood for the trees and seem intent, revelling even, in demonising individuals.
On the one hand what is the point, he is irrelevant. But on the other it is telling. What sort of idiot thinks it is a good idea to organise a dinner party for 9 right now? An idiot who assumes, Cummings like, that the rules simply don't apply to the likes of them. And this is much more serious. One idiot driving around the countryside in his car is not a risk to anyone. Even one family walking outside near that castle aren't really . It would have been perfectly permissible to have the same walk nearer to home. 9 people in a room for several hours are a potential cluster if any of them have it even without symptoms. And there are so many such idiots that we now have a second wave.
The increase in social distancing that is now necessary is a general requirement, not a universal one. This distinction is not widely appreciated, and never has been since the start of all this. The government has no interest in turning us into a police state and, I`d argue, neither should it. The important thing is that social distancing is increased on aggregate. That can, and is, being achieved without poking long lenses through windows or flying drones over moors and saying "ooh they are breaking the rules let`s lynch the fuckers".
Sure, you can argue that these requirements are in law, which is why I floated the idea a couple of days ago that they are really guidelines masquerading as laws, intended to achieve a overall effect rather than a means to persecute individuals.
Hence I care neither about Corbyn nor Cummings.
I think that there are 2 separate things there. These are not guidelines, they are laws and they are capable of being enforced (well, they would be if we had a working criminal justice system but we currently don't). The purpose of the laws is to influence behaviours and they will have achieved their objective if the vast majority comply with them.
A simply analogy is speeding. Speeding is a breach of the law but in practice it is rarely prosecuted (I can't help feeling that the majority who are caught really should be charged with driving without due care and attention). But the bigger picture is that we have these laws to moderate behaviour and reduce risk. If having a 20mph limit outside a school means everyone is doing less than 30 then, on one view, they have achieved their purpose. Doesn't stop the person caught doing 30 from being prosecuted though.
But fewer people will bother complying with the 20mph limit if they see other people driving though it at 30mph with no penalty, especially if those are the people that set the 30mph limit. That's why it's so important to create the impression that law-breakers will be punished for breaches and why episodes like the Cummings incident are so damaging.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
I'm sticking with my theory that Trump is Corbyn; 2016 was 2017 (but the Electoral College turned it into a victory) and that 2020 is 2019.
Biden is no Boris!
P.S. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean that as a campaigner Johnson is peerless.
But is Boris a Trump?
[A slightly complicated answer from me: they are both populist frauds. Johnson is intrinsically an optimist and the opposite of Trump, who is held prisoner by a culture war that doesn't really suit him]
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
To say that inane and innumerate journalists have been a huge problem this year, would be something of an understatement.
The point David makes is a good one. As someone with a maths background it is something that has bugged me for years. Particularly reporting stuff without providing the context.
I always get frustrated with the medias obsession with speed, rather than relative velocity between the relevant objects. It always crops up when reporting objects in orbit docking. The best example was the probe landing on a comet and the velocity given was (presumably) relative to the earth, an absolutely pointless figure and if relative to the comet was going to make one hell of a dent and a lot of debris.
My favorite however was how much wasps eat. Now as the figure given was not per colony/garden/kilometre squared one can only presume it was per wasp (clearly it wasn't, but context?). As the figure was I think 25 kg I never want to meet that wasp.
Pure FUD operation by the GOP. Trying to make people nervous about their voter and deter voting.
The problem with this, apart from trying to stop people voting not being a great look, is that if you signal that the convenient ways of voting are bad, your signal is much more strongly heard and believed by people on your own side. So even if you try to target locations that are good for the other side, you still risk suppressing your own vote more than theirs.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
To say that inane and innumerate journalists have been a huge problem this year, would be something of an understatement.
The point David makes is a good one. As someone with a maths background it is something that has bugged me for years. Particularly reporting stuff without providing the context.
I always get frustrated with the medias obsession with speed, rather than relative velocity between the relevant objects. It always crops up when reporting objects in orbit docking. The best example was the probe landing on a comet and the velocity given was (presumably) relative to the earth, an absolutely pointless figure and if relative to the comet was going to make one hell of a dent and a lot of debris.
My favorite however was how much wasps eat. Now as the figure given was not per colony/garden/kilometre squared one can only presumably it was per wasp (clearly it wasn't, but context?). As the figure was I think 25 kg I never want to meet that wasp.
Media seems (from some journalists I've met) to be a bastion of "angry maths haters" - people who don't like numbers, don't do numbers and *don't want to understand* numbers etc... The moment you start talking about numbers their eyes roll and they start making silly jokes to deflect.
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
If it is a case of "classical liberal arts innumeracy", why on earth are they publishing an article about the chances of winning/losing an election. It would be like me publishing a newspaper article on the relevance of the Canterbury Tales to life in modern Kenya.
Reckon the good folk of modern-day Kenya would be enthralled by stories of cuckolding and rasping farts.... Publish and be damned.
MarqueeMark: Clifden Nonpareil spotted and photographed in my village last week. (Not by me unfortunately.) Is that rare?
The Clifden Nonpareil (aka the Blue Underwing) was until recent years the Holy Grail for moth-ers. Partly because it was all but extinct in this country and only seen as an occassional migrant, partly because it is a very, very impressive moth. Recent years have seen a sharp uptick in numbers along the south coast, where it is clearly breeding again. This year has been an event because it has moved well inland, and people have been recording it for whom it was previously a hopeless dream. So much joy in its wake.
It might be global warming. Might just have got bored of Europe. And it might be a very temporary phenomenon - a harsh winter and they are gone again. (That said, it has survived the Beast from the East in recent years, so must be quite tough.)
I think that there are 2 separate things there. These are not guidelines, they are laws and they are capable of being enforced (well, they would be if we had a working criminal justice system but we currently don't). The purpose of the laws is to influence behaviours and they will have achieved their objective if the vast majority comply with them.
A simply analogy is speeding. Speeding is a breach of the law but in practice it is rarely prosecuted (I can't help feeling that the majority who are caught really should be charged with driving without due care and attention). But the bigger picture is that we have these laws to moderate behaviour and reduce risk. If having a 20mph limit outside a school means everyone is doing less than 30 then, on one view, they have achieved their purpose. Doesn't stop the person caught doing 30 from being prosecuted though.
But fewer people will bother complying with the 20mph limit if they see other people driving though it at 30mph with no penalty, especially if those are the people that set the 30mph limit. That's why it's so important to create the impression that law-breakers will be punished for breaches and why episodes like the Cummings incident are so damaging.
The problem is that people see limits as recommendations. The normal interpretation of a 30mph speed limit is "30mph or so is fine". The interpretation of a limit should really be "Only as fast as is safe but under no circumstance should you exceed 30mph". So they set it at 20mph in the hope that people will drive at 25mph which is what they think is safe for that road.
On social distancing, the recommendation should really be "Limit your interactions with other households as much as possible to reduce the spread. [TBD] is not allowed"
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
Am I the only person who salivates at the possibility of making bets with people like this?
But 2016 did happen. And the models were wrong. On November 8, 2016 (Election Day), the 538 model gave Trump a 28.4% chance of winning.
so It's just an astonishing feat of obtuseness. How can you not learn?
1) October, 2016: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible" 2) November, 2016: Say the models were wrong and declare data journalism dead 1) October, 2020: See the models showing a 25% probability, write articles as if this means "basically impossible"
Is it a related contingencies thing? Trump is behind in quite a number of swing states that he needs to win: surely he can't recover his position in all of them? Trump can still win this and it really wouldn't take much of a swing from the current position for the dominoes to fall his way. A model that doesn't recognise that is defective, plain and simple.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
IDK, the dude is literally staring at a prediction saying there's a 25% chance. If he ever rolled a dice and got a 6 he must have been like "hmm, this dice seems to be broken, the laws of probability said that wouldn't happen".
It may simply be a classical liberal arts innumeracy, lets face it we have been drowning in this on the vast majority of MSM reports on the virus in this country.
If it is a case of "classical liberal arts innumeracy", why on earth are they publishing an article about the chances of winning/losing an election. It would be like me publishing a newspaper article on the relevance of the Canterbury Tales to life in modern Kenya.
Reckon the good folk of modern-day Kenya would be enthralled by stories of cuckolding and rasping farts.... Publish and be damned.
MarqueeMark: Clifden Nonpareil spotted and photographed in my village last week. (Not by me unfortunately.) Is that rare?
The Clifden Nonpareil (aka the Blue Underwing) was until recent years the Holy Grail for moth-ers. Partly because it was all but extinct in this country and only seen as an occassional migrant, partly because it is a very, very impressive moth. Recent years have seen a sharp uptick in numbers along the south coast, where it is clearly breeding again. This year has been an event because it has moved well inland, and people have been recording it for whom it was previously a hopeless dream. So much joy in its wake.
It might be global warming. Might just have got bored of Europe. And it might be a very temporary phenomenon - a harsh winter and they are gone again. (That said, it has survived the Beast from the East in recent years, so must be quite tough.)
I live in a village in Northamptonshire - you don`t get much further inland than that - so good news.
Not sure the blessed Margaret would recognise the modern Tory party.
Although she was in part responsible for the modern Tories, by which I mean Johnsonites; careless of the rule of law, motivated solely by the (usually financial) advantage a situation might bring to them, and basically amoral. Contrast that with the traditional Conservative who, although resistant to change at least had some concept of duty to something wider than just themselves and their immediate associates.
Pure FUD operation by the GOP. Trying to make people nervous about their voter and deter voting.
Makes perfect sense. There is a MASSIVE FRAUD going on when people who aren't the Trumps vote by mail. SO clearly it MUST be fraud for the city officials to validate that these ballots are legal and admissible as they aren't legal and admissible. A giant conspiracy against the President by people who have the gall to try and have an election to overturn the people's mandate from the last election. As with Brexit people cannot be allowed to vote in case they have changed their minds.
The virus is growing in England, spreading across the country and from young to older people. The new interventions are effective however in limiting the rate of increase:
Comments
I mean, if you *really love* Trump you might do it, but Reagan-era or HW-era judges aren't really Trump's core demographic.
Or are you talking about Nate Silver's mob?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/opinion-analysis-justices-toe-hard-line-in-affirming-reservation-status-for-eastern-oklahoma/
https://twitter.com/CillizzaCNN/status/1311435601653235713
"*Every* election model shows Trump has almost no chance"
So, really Biden is a 92.5% chance.
(Says Robert ducking because someone is going to take this argument seriously...)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/weird-al-yankovic-trump-biden-debate-america-is-doomed-musical_n_5f75052bc5b6d698bb27c4f1
Let's face it, his parody of a President would be miles better than either of the two actual candidates, and a lot funnier!
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1311486961991942144
https://twitter.com/GabbyOrr_/status/1311445830512119814
https://twitter.com/DocJeffD/status/1311516252045602822
... In an overdispersed regime, identifying transmission events (someone infected someone else) is more important than identifying infected individuals. Consider an infected person and their 20 forward contacts—people they met since they got infected. Let’s say we test 10 of them with a cheap, rapid test and get our results back in an hour or two. This isn’t a great way to determine exactly who is sick out of that 10, because our test will miss some positives, but that’s fine for our purposes. If everyone is negative, we can act as if nobody is infected, because the test is pretty good at finding negatives. However, the moment we find a few transmissions, we know we may have a super-spreader event, and we can tell all 20 people to assume they are positive and to self-isolate—if there are one or two transmissions, there are likely more, exactly because of the clustering behavior. Depending on age and other factors, we can test those people individually using PCR tests, which can pinpoint who is infected, or ask them all to wait it out....
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/effects-of-ventilation-on-the-indoor-spread-of-covid19/CF272DAD7C27DC44F6A9393B0519CAE3 Get a cheap CO2 meter off Amazon, take it around your office or restaurant, if you find high levels anywhere fix your ventilation.
Early signs but good ones and I might need to eat my words
Not only is backward tracing effective in disease suppression, it can usefully inform policy at to what restrictions are likely to work.
We can only hope that the swing is the other way and this turns into the hammering that he so richly deserves.
In this race I guess the media narrative is soon going to flip from the former to the latter, and it'll be interesting to see if the narrative flip affects the betting markets.
We have to learn to live with it because "the chances of the cavalry arriving with millions of vaccine shots before the money runs out look slim."
Number 10 ally warns Boris Johnson's draconian approach will come back to haunt him
James Frayne says Rishi Sunak should be used more to be 'honest with public' about risks facing economy and jobs
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/30/government-must-focus-covids-economic-impact-claims-no-10-ally/
Is the correlation between having social media accounts and being an idiot spurious? Now there is an interesting mathematical problem. The instant nature of it certainly seems to rob many of the power of thought.
This downturn is not because of structural flaws in the economy that have been exposed, like most recessions are, but because of a temporary health scare.
Much of economic theory falsely assumes perfect information but the reality is that people act with their own knowledge as they perceive it. A recession is aggrevated because people lose confidence so don't go out spending their money, so businesses lay off staff and it becomes a vicious circle.
If people are in denial about the effects on the economy then people can keep spending, businesses can keep staff employed and the effects may not end up as bad.
A 'get back to normal' effort during a pandemic isn't going to work as people will lose confidence at that point so the economic effects would be a self-fulfilling prophecy at that point.
USA government planing to spend 300 million dollars on an advertising campaign to help Trump's reelection!
Every day we get another 'bat-people' idea.
I do wish he would concentrate on building the next generation of AI superforecasting engines and leave day to day politics alone.
Sure, you can argue that these requirements are in law, which is why I floated the idea a couple of days ago that they are really guidelines masquerading as laws, intended to achieve a overall effect rather than a means to persecute individuals.
Hence I care neither about Corbyn nor Cummings.
The closest we got to that in this country was the ignored people that Cummings/Cambridge Analytica found who rarely voted but were persuaded to do so on one occasion. And people still go on about how unfair and illegitimate that was. But it is still a pale shadow of what we see in the US.
I think overdispersion explains some of the phenomena we are seeing: sudden "taking off" in case numbers that doesn't entirely coincide with changes in behaviour, localized outbreaks, and even a little of the difference between outcomes in different countries (having said that, the larger the number of cases the less that can be attributed to bad luck, unless the tails are extraordinarily heavy). A lot of lay intuition will be wrong because of this: the article's argument about testing that you quote is one of those counter-intuitive consequences.
I'm unconvinced that most epidemiologists have a proper understanding of this, let alone the more generalist scientists advising policy, but perhaps those who are proper mathematicians will be getting it right.
--AS
That said, compared to the Cummings breach it barely registers on the scale, whilst Cummings' escapade, by comparison was off the scale.
There are thousands of pages of actual law, and even more thousands of pages from every quarter, official and less official, of guidance. Sadly to suggest the law is merely a mask is not the case.
The bright spot is that the law is so extensive and badly drafted - sometimes actually meaningless - that it will discourage some police officers from over exerting themselves in futile exercises.
Meanwhile the actual and current scandalous behaviour of the Home Office to migrants and asylum seekers goes almost without comment.
P.S. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean that as a campaigner Johnson is peerless.
It seems everyone get thrown under the bus except Cummings, Gove and Johnson.
A simply analogy is speeding. Speeding is a breach of the law but in practice it is rarely prosecuted (I can't help feeling that the majority who are caught really should be charged with driving without due care and attention). But the bigger picture is that we have these laws to moderate behaviour and reduce risk. If having a 20mph limit outside a school means everyone is doing less than 30 then, on one view, they have achieved their purpose. Doesn't stop the person caught doing 30 from being prosecuted though.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/205473/latest-react-findings-show-high-number/
I`ve felt this throughout. The government strategy has got the "nudge unit" written all over it. I`m frustrated that others can`t see the wood for the trees and seem intent, revelling even, in demonising individuals.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1311420439109890048?s=19
Pure FUD operation by the GOP. Trying to make people nervous about their voter and deter voting.
[A slightly complicated answer from me: they are both populist frauds. Johnson is intrinsically an optimist and the opposite of Trump, who is held prisoner by a culture war that doesn't really suit him]
I always get frustrated with the medias obsession with speed, rather than relative velocity between the relevant objects. It always crops up when reporting objects in orbit docking. The best example was the probe landing on a comet and the velocity given was (presumably) relative to the earth, an absolutely pointless figure and if relative to the comet was going to make one hell of a dent and a lot of debris.
My favorite however was how much wasps eat. Now as the figure given was not per colony/garden/kilometre squared one can only presume it was per wasp (clearly it wasn't, but context?). As the figure was I think 25 kg I never want to meet that wasp.
It might be global warming. Might just have got bored of Europe. And it might be a very temporary phenomenon - a harsh winter and they are gone again. (That said, it has survived the Beast from the East in recent years, so must be quite tough.)
On social distancing, the recommendation should really be "Limit your interactions with other households as much as possible to reduce the spread. [TBD] is not allowed"
You can see why mothing people might have had it on their wish list!
https://twitter.com/kieran_hurley/status/1311579144396955648?s=19