Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trump and his wife test positive – politicalbetting.com

123457»

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    LadyG said:

    Scott_xP said:
    They both do the Thai wai at the end. The clasped praying hands and brief head bow.

    We should all adopt this. It’s gracious, elegant and easy. Handshakes are gone forever. And the elbow bumps are a bit silly and awkward.
    Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
    You have several days' notice of meeting a female?
    Perhaps he's a member of the same sect as Pence ?
    Don't worry, if the Trump succumbs to the pox then under President Pence you won't need to worry about this. The womenfolk will be kept in their own home suckling babies and cooking apple pie.
    That is why Pence is so dangerous. He has beliefs he might act on and AFAICS they are not exactly modern.
    Without doubt Pence is a nasty piece of work, but at least he is likely to conform to political etiquettes.

    Keep on rockin' in the free world!
  • novanova Posts: 690
    RobD said:

    nova said:

    RobD said:

    nova said:

    RobD said:

    nova said:

    Not sure Matt Singh has got this one right.

    Mid March Boris had an approval rating of +4%, by mid April it was +40%.

    Cadwalladr is right that Boris was more popular when he was ill and in the month after.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1311958523912294401?s=20
    Carole being schooled by YouGov now? She really needs to put down twitter for a bit.
    They're making an assumption though, aren't they? Initially Matt Singh compared party polling, to Cadwalladr mentioning Boris' popularity. Now YouGov are comparing party popularity to Boris' popularity.

    There's a good chance YouGov are right, but if they only have one data point for Boris between mid March and mid May, then it's still an assumption. The big story at the start of lockdown was Rishi announcing huge amounts of spending - how do they know he wasn't driving the Tory increase, while Boris was still missing?

    If you look at 10th May, Boris is still on +22%, while the govt approval is down to 7% - You could easily ask why he's so much more popular than the govt in the weeks after his illness?

    Pollsters spend most of their time (reasonably) telling us not to read too much into things, or adding caveats to their data, so I still think Matt Singh and YouGov's response to this is far too dismissive.

    The leadership approval ratings tell the same story. A surge at the end of March, not during April:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_approval_opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
    YouGov have just backtracked as they do have more data, and it shows that Boris popularity did rise after he went into ICU. I wouldn't read too much into it, but I don't think Matt Singh comes out of this looking particularly clever.

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1311977426923261952
    A small blip relative to the surge seen previously, which is what Carole was alluding to.
    12% is a surge and 6% is a blip?

    Given that this thread started with someone mocking Cadwalladr for a half-hearted backtrack, it's a little ironic.

    Matt Singh was wrong to tweet about party ratings and party favourability when Cadwalladr mentioned Boris' popularity. He said Boris' ICU admission had no discernible effect on the "polls", which is true, as he tweeted a pic of party election polling, but for a polling expert to make that kind of mix up is very poor. I think he should apologise.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    I've just read that people returning from Iceland have to quarantine for 14 days.

    I wouldn't mind but I only went in for a packet of frozen chips

    Yeah but lots of evidence for the virus persisting on frozen food (meat packing plants, NZ etc). Can't be too careful... :)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.

    They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    LadyG said:

    kinabalu said:

    LadyG said:

    Scott_xP said:
    They both do the Thai wai at the end. The clasped praying hands and brief head bow.

    We should all adopt this. It’s gracious, elegant and easy. Handshakes are gone forever. And the elbow bumps are a bit silly and awkward.
    Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
    kinabalu said:

    LadyG said:

    Scott_xP said:
    They both do the Thai wai at the end. The clasped praying hands and brief head bow.

    We should all adopt this. It’s gracious, elegant and easy. Handshakes are gone forever. And the elbow bumps are a bit silly and awkward.
    Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.
    There is a theory that the terrible French resurgence in Covid is just because the French won’t give up the social kiss - la bise.

    Whereas non-kissing, non-handshaking Thailand has barely seen any Covid at all....
    Mmm, I wonder. Personally I have never mastered the social kiss. My instinct is always to plant a soft one on the forehead but that has "last rites" overtones that some dislike.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    isam said:
    Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.

    What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    Nigelb said:

    So I just looked through all the presidents who died in office and it turns out that in the event that Trump succumbs to covid19, he will be the first in the history of the office to qualify for a Darwin Award.

    Not necessarily.
    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/harrison-dies-of-pneumonia

    (edit - I see this point has been made.)
    Hardly true - he's already passed on his genetic material
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    isam said:
    The ONS data, resolved back to total estimated infections per day (England)

    image
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    kinabalu said:



    Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.

    One of my old COs had a cast iron rule that kissing was "for whores only".

    The most disparaging comment he could make about somebody was that he was the type of bloke who "kisses his Mrs".

    He was a very inspirational leader and we would have all flown through the gates of hell for him.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,327
    1. The official statement is that Trump has tested positive for Sars Cov 2, i.e. the virus, not the disease Covid-19.

    2. There are few people to move the needle here. If you don't like the guy and intend to vote for Biden (c48% already in the bag) this is not going to change it

    3. Where it MIGHT have an effect is boosting GOP/Trump turnout which is potentially a weak spot.


  • Dura_Ace said:

    The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.

    They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
    Entirely agree and its been the obvious way to go for a while. Hardly anyone can afford to play in F1 and so many of the ones who do are uncompetitive. Level the playing field!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    Dura_Ace said:

    The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.

    They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
    Entirely agree and its been the obvious way to go for a while. Hardly anyone can afford to play in F1 and so many of the ones who do are uncompetitive. Level the playing field!
    Wasn't that what Max Mosley tried to do?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. City, was it the equity firm or Caesars that ended up buying William Hill? I recall reading the story a little while ago.
  • isam said:
    Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.

    What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
    Nothing wrong with a bit of government scaremongering in the scenario we had. "A bit" is important in that statemtent, it shouldnt be so much as to undermine public confidence but enough to change some behaviour to get the R closer to 1.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:



    Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.

    One of my old COs had a cast iron rule that kissing was "for whores only".

    The most disparaging comment he could make about somebody was that he was the type of bloke who "kisses his Mrs".

    He was a very inspirational leader and we would have all flown through the gates of hell for him.
    In spite of my earlier comment I understand (no experience on the matter) that Thai girls consider proper kissing (tongues) is normally something that only committed couples do.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    The Honda F1 story - if big manufacturers don't want to come flooding back into the sport (i.e. Toyota, Peugeot, Ford) then F1 needs to copy Indycar and have OEM engine manufacturers. Mercedes reportedly selling up having done all there is to be done - so there's one. Renault and/or Ferrari as engine suppliers on free availability has to be the way forward.

    They should just adopt a variant of the IndyCar rules altogether. Fuck off the OEMs apart from engines, have a control chassis and the teams just do aero. It's far more cost effective and sustainable.
    Entirely agree and its been the obvious way to go for a while. Hardly anyone can afford to play in F1 and so many of the ones who do are uncompetitive. Level the playing field!
    The answer to me would be to separate the drivers and manufacturers championships.

    Every driver should get to drive the same number of races in each brand of car, perhaps 2 GPs per year per brand.

    This solution finds the best driver and the best manufacturer, which is far more interesting than finding the best combination of driver and manufacturer.
  • isam said:
    Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.

    What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
    Unless you're saying the new restrictions are having zero impact (which seems implausible) then wouldn't infections be going down not plateauing if Vallance was scaremongering?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:


    That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.

    It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.

    In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
    But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
    Its entirely logical.

    If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
    Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.

    Why?

    Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320
    Scott_xP said:
    In other words she acted decisively once it became clear their position was untenable?
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:


    That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.

    It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.

    In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
    But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
    Its entirely logical.

    If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
    Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.

    Why?

    Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
    You're wrong.

    B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:


    That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.

    It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.

    In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
    But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
    Its entirely logical.

    If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
    Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.

    Why?

    Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
    You're wrong.

    B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
    That is not material to the point I am demonstrating.
  • This is a humdinger of a leading question! Survation should ashamed of themselves.

    https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1311993397385797632
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080

    Scott_xP said:
    In other words she acted decisively once it became clear their position was untenable?
    The criticism is that she is bending to public opinion, rather than having the judgment to anticipate it.

    I've always said that it's a strength to admit to and correct mistakes - but clearly it would be better not to have made the mistake in the first place.

    Most people will consider that petty nit-picking in this case, given that the correction has been much faster than with Calderwood, and that it never came from Johnson over Cummings.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    isam said:
    Quoting the margin of error on these numbers may dampen the excitement somewhat. Let's see if this is a blip or (hopefully) the start of a trend.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    This thread is at maximum viral load
  • Scott_xP said:
    In other words she acted decisively once it became clear their position was untenable?
    A party leader acting within a day or two of hearing an allegation is perfectly fine to the vast majority of the public. Only the highly partisan will care exactly what she knew Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:


    That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.

    It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.

    In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
    But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
    Its entirely logical.

    If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
    Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.

    Why?

    Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
    You're wrong.

    B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
    That is not material to the point I am demonstrating.
    Yes it is. The question is solely Biden ECVs so Trump isn't in the equation.

    For every ECV the question is if it is won by Biden (you win) or A N Other (you lose).

    Trump is only relevant for the Trump and Supremacy markets.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,314

    Dura_Ace said:

    kinabalu said:



    Strongly strongly agree. The elbow bump is embarrassing and it still involves contact. The "Cliff Richard" is vastly better. Also it gets round the "shake or kiss?" dilemma when it comes to females that I find so paralyzing that I start to fret about it days before I'm due to meet one.

    One of my old COs had a cast iron rule that kissing was "for whores only".

    The most disparaging comment he could make about somebody was that he was the type of bloke who "kisses his Mrs".

    He was a very inspirational leader and we would have all flown through the gates of hell for him.
    In spite of my earlier comment I understand (no experience on the matter) that Thai girls consider proper kissing (tongues) is normally something that only committed couples do.
    Methinks you doth protest too much. Your knowledge of Thai girls seems genuinely deep and, dare I say, broad.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,871
    algarkirk said:

    MrEd said:

    @Peter_the_Punter i recognise I still need to come back to you!

    Don't worry. So much is happening, and I'm out most of the day. I expect by the time I come back Martians will have invaded.
    Are they on-board that incoming asteroid?
    Would Martians invading make the front page at the moment?

    I think you've preempted tomorrow's Daily Star.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    NEW THReAd
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,993
    edited October 2020

    isam said:
    Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.

    What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
    - Infection rates surge -

    - New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -

    - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -

    - Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -

    Hmm.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060
    Nigelb said:

    So I just looked through all the presidents who died in office and it turns out that in the event that Trump succumbs to covid19, he will be the first in the history of the office to qualify for a Darwin Award.

    Not necessarily.
    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/harrison-dies-of-pneumonia

    (edit - I see this point has been made.)
    The Darwin Awards only started in 1994, and no US President has died in Office since 1963. So *if* Trum does beome eligible, it is hardly Surpising that he would be the first eligible US President .
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:


    That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.

    It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.

    In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
    But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.
    Its entirely logical.

    If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
    Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.

    Why?

    Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
    You're wrong.

    B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
    That is not material to the point I am demonstrating.
    Yes it is. The question is solely Biden ECVs so Trump isn't in the equation.

    For every ECV the question is if it is won by Biden (you win) or A N Other (you lose).

    Trump is only relevant for the Trump and Supremacy markets.
    Think deeper. It is B vs C for EC votes. So when assessing how many of the 540 available B will win you assess the chances of B against C. It has no meaning in isolation. What C is defines and affects what B is. For example, if C is Superman, you get one answer for B's chances, and if C is Clark Kent, you get another. Thus if B or C is void, so in logic should the other one be. QED.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824

    isam said:
    Quoting the margin of error on these numbers may dampen the excitement somewhat. Let's see if this is a blip or (hopefully) the start of a trend.
    But much better news than another doubling.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,824

    isam said:
    Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.

    What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
    - Infection rates surge -

    - New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -

    - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -

    - Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -

    Hmm.
    You don't believe in cause and effect, do you? I always thought of you as one of the more sensible ones.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,993
    RobD said:

    isam said:
    Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.

    What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
    - Infection rates surge -

    - New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -

    - Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -

    - Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -

    Hmm.
    You don't believe in cause and effect, do you? I always thought of you as one of the more sensible ones.
    There might be the possibility of a hint of a smidgeon of sarcasm/reductio ad absurdum there.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Off topic.
    Does anyone know what the impact of the eventual take over of William Hill will be ?
    My son in law works in their IT department in Leeds.

    iirc it has been suggested the Americans only want the American bit and the UK-based bookmaker will be sold off. Betfred already owns a stake. But I've not been following the saga and your son-in-law is doubtless better informed than me.
  • Pulpstar said:
    To be honest even the saintly FDR hid his illness. Different times no doubt, but certainly Trump would not be alone on this one.
    FDR hid his illness except when visiting injured troops in hospitals when he insisted on using his wheelchair.
This discussion has been closed.