Does the US really want four more years of this bunch of clowns ?
Well only one party in the last 100 years has lost the White House after only 1 term, the Democrats in 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan, so historically the odds still favour Trump even if Biden is ahead
You have played this sleight of hand before. You exclude Ford and Bush Snr even though the former never won a presidential election and Bush lost after one term, but that to you does not count because Reagan won two elections before him.
Correctly so, Ford ran for re election after 8 years of his party in the White House, Bush Snr ran after 12 years of his party in the White House, obviously neither were in the same category as a President running for re election after only 4 years of their party in the White House,
I know what you are writing is factually true, but it is totally meaningless in terms of predicting election results, which is what you are trying to do. I'm sure you have seen this https://xkcd.com/1122/ before.
I think those concerns were a little off-base. Nobody can seriously expect early vaccines to prevent infection altogether -- although later versions might -- and 50% reduction in chance of symptoms would still be a powerful tool. I think it's hardly likely that this could occur without also reducing serious disease.
Put another way, if the trials had been designed so a candidate would only pass if it completely prevents infection in a large percentage of patients, we'd not expect to get one for several years. And if the trial were required the show that the risk of death were reduced we'd either need challenge trials or to wait years for the results.
The real question for patients should be: is it better to get this vaccine than not to get it? I've little doubt that these vaccines will pass that bar easily.
Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.
8.53pm seems an oddly specific time. Has someone taken literally a random techies' guesstimate that it would take about an hour to fix?
Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.
8.53pm seems an oddly specific time. Has someone taken literally a random techies' guesstimate that it would take about an hour to fix?
They're probably running the data pipeline process which has a specific end time.
Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.
8.53pm seems an oddly specific time. Has someone taken literally a random techies' guesstimate that it would take about an hour to fix?
I think it's just 15 mins after the update process started.
I`m hoping that @Isam had read yet another superb Matthew Parris article in The Times today.
It mirrors what Isam has been posting for a while, especially this week. I recall a post of his citing Popper`s non falsifiable hypothesis (in relation to the perceived effect of lockdown).
Parris writes:
"And this week my radio tells me that there`s "early evidence" that the new rule of six may be working because (the BBC reports) a survey suggests the rate of infection may be slowing. I see. So if the spread is slowing that`s reported as an argument for lockdown, is it? And if the spread were accelerating, would that be reported as an argument for more lockdown? No. It would be reported as an argument for more lockdown. "The science" has come up with a hypothesis that can never be falsified in any future event. Honestly, we might as well be ducking witches".
Yes, I saw that. It has been edited to make more sense, as @Chris pointed out it seemed to have some words mixed up
It also rather glosses over the opposite: that whatever happened, the anti-restrictions crowd (bearing in mind that if what we’ve had is “lockdown”, Sweden has also had lots of lockdown) would certainly say that it meant no restrictions had been necessary.
Infections down? “Restrictions weren’t necessary, it would have come down without them, prove it wouldn’t, cancel them.”
We had fifty years of similar arguments around smoking.
The solution is surely the following policy:
"People with surnames beginning A-L are required to work from home, never use public transport or restaurants, never meet outside of their household, and wear a mask 24/7.
People with surnames beginning M-S must wear a mask inside shops and on public transport, and should meet in groups of no more than 6.
People with surnames beginning T-Z are forbidden from wearing masks, must eat only in restaurants in groups of at least 20, and are required to shake hands at least once every 5 minutes.
We will consider the outcomes in one month's time."
Genuine question: if Trump had followed almost exactly the same policies but been polite and reasonable throughout his term, and not a performance-art c**t, would he win a second term?
I`m hoping that @Isam had read yet another superb Matthew Parris article in The Times today.
It mirrors what Isam has been posting for a while, especially this week. I recall a post of his citing Popper`s non falsifiable hypothesis (in relation to the perceived effect of lockdown).
Parris writes:
"And this week my radio tells me that there`s "early evidence" that the new rule of six may be working because (the BBC reports) a survey suggests the rate of infection may be slowing. I see. So if the spread is slowing that`s reported as an argument for lockdown, is it? And if the spread were accelerating, would that be reported as an argument for more lockdown? No. It would be reported as an argument for more lockdown. "The science" has come up with a hypothesis that can never be falsified in any future event. Honestly, we might as well be ducking witches".
Yes, I saw that. It has been edited to make more sense, as @Chris pointed out it seemed to have some words mixed up
It also rather glosses over the opposite: that whatever happened, the anti-restrictions crowd (bearing in mind that if what we’ve had is “lockdown”, Sweden has also had lots of lockdown) would certainly say that it meant no restrictions had been necessary.
“The PM was in Exeter yesterday and was interviewed for our localTV news by an experienced political commentator. The PM was evasive, bumbling, poorly prepared and utterly unconvincing“
“Boris's dreadful performance on the Covid epidemic has let us all down badly“.
“This is just not the right time for Boris to be the PM. This calls for a skillset which even his most ardent supporters know he doesnt possess “
“Johnson is not PM material and never will be.”
“ Sadly, it is also fair to Boris whose inability to take soundings has led to this sorry state – and he is still heading farther into the quick sands. Poor country, poor people”
“ So Boris is past his shelf life. Who will replace him?”
“ don't think Boris is able to up his game. I can't believe he was promoted to prime minister”
There have always been a proportion of Conservatives who absolutely loathe Johnson as lazy, dissolute, not a real Tory, and not up to it. They are finding their voice again after being put in their box by his hefty election win, as his flaws have come to the fore in this crisis.
Now I basically agree with their analysis... but are they winning converts in the Conservative Party? I suspect not yet, and that it remains mainly people who always hated him but were temporarily silenced. The grassroots still like his style, and he's not faced any elections at which councillors lose seats, MPs get seriously nervous and so on.
His problem will be that the fundamental composition of Conservative MPs has changed, with a greater weighting from the former industrial areas. So this is not the Knights of the Shire of old who might have given BoJo a pass because he went to Eton and Oxford and with whom they felt they had something in common. As long as they get the vibes he has outlived his usefulness, he will be gone.
I actually think the reverse. The knights of the shire were loyal up to the point that they weren't. Differences were resolved in private, with public loyalty. But when patience was exhausted, the Party came first, and the leader was finished.
The new breed let off steam a bit but ultimately they owe Johnson personally, and need him even if he's tarnished - they aren't holding those seats with Jeremy Hunt or whatever, and ultimately have to lash themselves to the mast. I think when push comes to shove, that's what they'll do. Also, members have personal loyalty to him, and aren't readily going to let their MP cast him aside.
I ultimately think this "Johnson under pressure" stuff is for the birds. If he wants to - and he actually might not as he finds being PM a pain and it detracts from his social life - I think there is practically zero chance of him being eased out as party leader in the next five years. He'd either lose a general election or come under greater pressure with a reduced majority in a second full term.
I still think there is a fair chance Boris will walk. He does not seem to be enjoying the job, and while he is not a wealthy man, will have seen how much even Theresa May is trousering on the rubber chicken circuit. Churchill, as Boris will know, was also often insolvent in office (despite, like Boris, receiving a constant stream of book revenues) and needed to be bailed out by rich friends.
I do though share some of your doubts about Boris being forced out against his will. Paradoxically, although the rise and rise of Rishi Sunak makes it easier for backbenchers and even new backbenchers to replace one poll-winner with another, the likelihood it will be the Chancellor who wins the leadership election makes it less likely that any ambitious senior minister (that rhymes with mauve) or ex-minister (that rhymes with, erm, let's say hunt) will move against the PM.
There's an awful lot of truth in the comment of whoever it was who said that Johnson has always wanted to become PM, and has always wanted to have been PM... but really can't be bothered with the bit in the middle.
But I don't think he'll walk. A one year Premiership (or two, or three, or four) would simply be seen as a failure by posterity, and he knows that. I could see him walking if he gets another term, but struggle to see it earlier.
Similarly, another common comment is "Anyone who is mad enough wants to be prime-minister is not suitable to be PM." The comment is harsh but probably close to the case for Mr Johnson.
Only 34% of Conservative MPs have been to Oxbridge too, in 1997 it was 51% file:///home/chronos/u-a4ac0077cff3dec12ab65f91af1476ea4829487c/MyFiles/Downloads/CBP-7483%20(1).pdf
Executive summary: The Conservative Party has become less conservative since they started letting plebs become MPs.
This briefing paper provides data on the gender, age, ethnicity and educational backgrounds of Members of Parliament elected at the 2019 General Election and how this has changed over time.
The 2019 intake's ethnicity and so on has not changed over time; they mean, of course, how it compares with previous generations. If there is a job going for someone to sub-edit straplines on Commons research papers, I'm available.
Their age has. They are, remarkably, all just over 9 1/2 months older.
Which I think we need to look at the specimen dates.
24th is still the most recent peak and it still looks to have levelled off since then and fallen a very tiny amount.
Their message says it will take several days to clear the backlog "the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October"
We might have to wait until into next week for this to clear up.
Which I think we need to look at the specimen dates.
24th is still the most recent peak and it still looks to have levelled off since then and fallen a very tiny amount.
Hmm, I'm a little worried that the last four days or so all have numbers similar to the amount at the end of last week. Those four days will have cases added to them because of the lag in specimen date.
Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.
8.53pm seems an oddly specific time. Has someone taken literally a random techies' guesstimate that it would take about an hour to fix?
They also stated at that point that the data took 15 minutes to load. For most of this week the update is c. 4.00pm.
Does the US really want four more years of this bunch of clowns ?
Well only one party in the last 100 years has lost the White House after only 1 term, the Democrats in 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan, so historically the odds still favour Trump even if Biden is ahead
You have played this sleight of hand before. You exclude Ford and Bush Snr even though the former never won a presidential election and Bush lost after one term, but that to you does not count because Reagan won two elections before him.
Correctly so, Ford ran for re election after 8 years of his party in the White House, Bush Snr ran after 12 years of his party in the White House, obviously neither were in the same category as a President running for re election after only 4 years of their party in the White House,
I know what you are writing is factually true, but it is totally meaningless in terms of predicting election results, which is what you are trying to do. I'm sure you have seen this https://xkcd.com/1122/ before.
No it isn't, of course there may be exceptions but there are exceptions to anything, however the normal rules in US presidential politics are - If your party has been out of power for 8 years and you are their candidate you will win, if you then run for re election four years later you are re elected (or your Vice President is re elected if you are assassinated as was the case for JFK in 1964 with LBJ), your Vice President or successor as party nominee however will then lose the subsequent election.
That has been the case for every US presidential election since 1950 with the exception of 1980 and 1988 and 1992 (though 1992 effectively followed the rule just it was 4 years delayed).
Now Biden could win as Reagan did in 1980 and may well do so but he would be very much the exception to the rule
I think those concerns were a little off-base. Nobody can seriously expect early vaccines to prevent infection altogether -- although later versions might -- and 50% reduction in chance of symptoms would still be a powerful tool. I think it's hardly likely that this could occur without also reducing serious disease.
Put another way, if the trials had been designed so a candidate would only pass if it completely prevents infection in a large percentage of patients, we'd not expect to get one for several years. And if the trial were required the show that the risk of death were reduced we'd either need challenge trials or to wait years for the results.
The real question for patients should be: is it better to get this vaccine than not to get it? I've little doubt that these vaccines will pass that bar easily.
--AS
This might reassure some people. Derek Lowe is a pretty noted and level headed name in science reporting, so I tend to trust him on this.
Also, there is no way he just started to feel ill on Thursday....that isn't how COVID works.
My own theory is that he's had it since last weekend and decided he wasn't going to miss the debate.
If I'm darkly cynical he attended in the hope to infect Sleepy Joe.
I thought they said everyone in the room had been tested? Do we know when those tests were conducted?
IIRC the Trumps arrived too late to be tested even though they had agreed to that procedure beforehand. I suspect it was deliberate as they already had a pretty good idea by that stage.
My working assumption is that Trump's in a critical condition.
He may be sending the odd tweet whilst on oxygen, it's possible, or it might be one of him team ghosting for him - it's not hard to imitate his style.
Either way I'd take official reports of his condition with a pinch of salt.
It was those answers to whether Trump had needed oxygen that were the warning flares for me.
Keep in mind that doctors attending the President - any president - are highly likely to use somewhat heroic measures perhaps a wee bit earlier than with a less eminent patient. Such as break out the oxygen if POTUS was getting huffy and NOT in a good way.
SO use of H2O not necessarily a sign of severity, though clearly we are NOT talking asymptomatic.
Note that heath of head of state and/or government has ALWAYS been considered a matter of state:as positive propaganda when good, and a state secret when not.
No different this time around. Just that White House is run by a bunch of reform school rejects and other criminal incompetents (also visa versa) who matriculated from drunk tanks and diploma mills (such as Wharton School of U of Penn).
I think those concerns were a little off-base. Nobody can seriously expect early vaccines to prevent infection altogether -- although later versions might -- and 50% reduction in chance of symptoms would still be a powerful tool. I think it's hardly likely that this could occur without also reducing serious disease.
Put another way, if the trials had been designed so a candidate would only pass if it completely prevents infection in a large percentage of patients, we'd not expect to get one for several years. And if the trial were required the show that the risk of death were reduced we'd either need challenge trials or to wait years for the results.
The real question for patients should be: is it better to get this vaccine than not to get it? I've little doubt that these vaccines will pass that bar easily.
--AS
This might reassure some people. Derek Lowe is a pretty noted and level headed name in science reporting, so I tend to trust him on this.
Yes, I agree. I've been following his column for a few weeks. He's generally good and accurate on the stats, and the comments on his articles are not too bad either.
I`m hoping that @Isam had read yet another superb Matthew Parris article in The Times today.
It mirrors what Isam has been posting for a while, especially this week. I recall a post of his citing Popper`s non falsifiable hypothesis (in relation to the perceived effect of lockdown).
Parris writes:
"And this week my radio tells me that there`s "early evidence" that the new rule of six may be working because (the BBC reports) a survey suggests the rate of infection may be slowing. I see. So if the spread is slowing that`s reported as an argument for lockdown, is it? And if the spread were accelerating, would that be reported as an argument for more lockdown? No. It would be reported as an argument for more lockdown. "The science" has come up with a hypothesis that can never be falsified in any future event. Honestly, we might as well be ducking witches".
Yes, I saw that. It has been edited to make more sense, as @Chris pointed out it seemed to have some words mixed up
It also rather glosses over the opposite: that whatever happened, the anti-restrictions crowd (bearing in mind that if what we’ve had is “lockdown”, Sweden has also had lots of lockdown) would certainly say that it meant no restrictions had been necessary.
Infections down? “Restrictions weren’t necessary, it would have come down without them, prove it wouldn’t, cancel them.”
We had fifty years of similar arguments around smoking.
The solution is surely the following policy:
"People with surnames beginning A-L are required to work from home, never use public transport or restaurants, never meet outside of their household, and wear a mask 24/7.
People with surnames beginning M-S must wear a mask inside shops and on public transport, and should meet in groups of no more than 6.
People with surnames beginning T-Z are forbidden from wearing masks, must eat only in restaurants in groups of at least 20, and are required to shake hands at least once every 5 minutes.
We will consider the outcomes in one month's time."
--AS
Good one. I was trying to think of a hypothesis that would satisfy Parris on the grounds of falsifiability. My idea was to have the population of Liverpool self-isolate while that of Manchester conducted street carnivals.
I think those concerns were a little off-base. Nobody can seriously expect early vaccines to prevent infection altogether -- although later versions might -- and 50% reduction in chance of symptoms would still be a powerful tool. I think it's hardly likely that this could occur without also reducing serious disease.
Put another way, if the trials had been designed so a candidate would only pass if it completely prevents infection in a large percentage of patients, we'd not expect to get one for several years. And if the trial were required the show that the risk of death were reduced we'd either need challenge trials or to wait years for the results.
The real question for patients should be: is it better to get this vaccine than not to get it? I've little doubt that these vaccines will pass that bar easily.
--AS
This might reassure some people. Derek Lowe is a pretty noted and level headed name in science reporting, so I tend to trust him on this.
Yes, I agree. I've been following his column for a few weeks. He's generally good and accurate on the stats, and the comments on his articles are not too bad either.
Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.
8.53pm seems an oddly specific time. Has someone taken literally a random techies' guesstimate that it would take about an hour to fix?
I think it's just 15 mins after the update process started.
Yup - I think that part of the process is automated - after they hit the "update" button the message goes up on the website with a time 15 minutes from the start of the update. That is based on similar messages I've seen over the last few weeks.
Sunday paper book serialisations tend to keep their biggest scoops for weeks 2 & 3?
Think he is scandal proof anyway. Everyone knows he has no decency or morals, plenty forgive him and a few like that kind of thing.
Even so, I think we all expected some sort of Boris boofed me in the stationary cupboard and later I found out he also boofed two other ladies that same day.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Due to a technical issue, which has now been resolved, there has been a delay in publishing a number of COVID-19 cases to the dashboard in England. This means the total reported over the coming days will include some additional cases from the period between 24 September and 1 October, increasing the number of cases reported.
8.53pm seems an oddly specific time. Has someone taken literally a random techies' guesstimate that it would take about an hour to fix?
They also stated at that point that the data took 15 minutes to load. For most of this week the update is c. 4.00pm.
Given we already know about how colourful Boris' personal life has been, seems a strange choice for the big scoop headline.
If Boris had done it fair enough but he cannot be responsible for his Father
Is this the best front page the mail on sunday can do
Yes, it like the criticism that his dad won't stick to the COVID rules. What do they expect Boris to do, send round the military to lock him down from travel and wear a mask at all times.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
Well you can also see that on the government website. Click the cases link, and scroll down.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
The cases are interesting in a backward looking kind of way. But they have a number of problems, when trying to decide what is really, really happening
1) The number of tess changes 2) The capacity is rocketing up. Which means that it is becoming easier to get a test again. 3) Testing is being dumped into the hotspots. 4) etc...
The only way to know what is happening is to run and infection survey. Fortunately, the ONS is doing exactly that. The latest data for infections per day looks like this -
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
Well you can also see that on the government website. Click the cases link, and scroll down.
Given we already know about how colourful Boris' personal life has been, seems a strange choice for the big scoop headline.
If Boris had done it fair enough but he cannot be responsible for his Father
Is this the best front page the mail on sunday can do
Yes, it like the criticism that his dad won't stick to the COVID rules. What do they expect Boris to do, send round the military to lock him down from travel and wear a mask at all times.
Introduce fewer, clearer laws. Enforce them and provide enough resource for the courts and police to do so.
(That's obviously the opposite of what I "expect" them to do, but is what they should do and why the criticism is deserved).
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Technical fault, because you need to include them at some point, maybe but specimen date looks level but higher (although it's going to be important to see how the distribution of new specimens over the next few days), yes but statistics is hard.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
The cases are interesting in a backward looking kind of way. But they have a number of problems, when trying to decide what is really, really happening
1) The number of tess changes 2) The capacity is rocketing up. Which means that it is becoming easier to get a test again. 3) Testing is being dumped into the hotspots. 4) etc...
The only way to know what is happening is to run and infection survey. Fortunately, the ONS is doing exactly that. The latest data for infections per day looks like this -
The error bars on the daily figures must be pretty big.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
The cases are interesting in a backward looking kind of way. But they have a number of problems, when trying to decide what is really, really happening
1) The number of tess changes 2) The capacity is rocketing up. Which means that it is becoming easier to get a test again. 3) Testing is being dumped into the hotspots. 4) etc...
The only way to know what is happening is to run and infection survey. Fortunately, the ONS is doing exactly that. The latest data for infections per day looks like this -
It's interesting that we seem to now be catching 60-80% of cases. If we could get the isolation rates up it feels like we could actually get this under control.
Thanks for all that people. I must say I was somewhat suspicious yesterday with the 2 simultaneous pieces of news. 1 Cases levelling off. 2 770 at Northumbria alone. Didn't sit entirely right.
And @Malmesbury does a wonderful job. Thank you very much for your efforts.
My working assumption is that Trump's in a critical condition.
He may be sending the odd tweet whilst on oxygen, it's possible, or it might be one of him team ghosting for him - it's not hard to imitate his style.
Either way I'd take official reports of his condition with a pinch of salt.
It was those answers to whether Trump had needed oxygen that were the warning flares for me.
Keep in mind that doctors attending the President - any president - are highly likely to use somewhat heroic measures perhaps a wee bit earlier than with a less eminent patient. Such as break out the oxygen if POTUS was getting huffy and NOT in a good way.
SO use of H2O not necessarily a sign of severity, though clearly we are NOT talking asymptomatic.
Note that heath of head of state and/or government has ALWAYS been considered a matter of state:as positive propaganda when good, and a state secret when not.
No different this time around. Just that White House is run by a bunch of reform school rejects and other criminal incompetents (also visa versa) who matriculated from drunk tanks and diploma mills (such as Wharton School of U of Penn).
Yes - and Trump could be in a steep decline or faking it completely, and we likely wouldn’t find out for a while.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
The cases are interesting in a backward looking kind of way. But they have a number of problems, when trying to decide what is really, really happening
1) The number of tess changes 2) The capacity is rocketing up. Which means that it is becoming easier to get a test again. 3) Testing is being dumped into the hotspots. 4) etc...
The only way to know what is happening is to run and infection survey. Fortunately, the ONS is doing exactly that. The latest data for infections per day looks like this -
The error bars on the daily figures must be pretty big.
Given we already know about how colourful Boris' personal life has been, seems a strange choice for the big scoop headline.
If Boris had done it fair enough but he cannot be responsible for his Father
Is this the best front page the mail on sunday can do
Yes, it like the criticism that his dad won't stick to the COVID rules. What do they expect Boris to do, send round the military to lock him down from travel and wear a mask at all times.
Absolutely. It's his employee Cummings that he should do that to.
Given we already know about how colourful Boris' personal life has been, seems a strange choice for the big scoop headline.
If Boris had done it fair enough but he cannot be responsible for his Father
Is this the best front page the mail on sunday can do
That suggests that the book is a bit of a bust for earth shattering revelations about Boris himself.
Bit like the Cameron biography?
The guy seems to have a vacuous personality constructed of bluster. Every report I have seen by anyone spending any time with him is that he is a hollow shell, that he lacks real ability, talent and warmth.
What sort of "... earth shattering revelations ..." could there be about such a person?
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
Until Malmesbury does his magic on specimen date analysis we won't know.
The cases are interesting in a backward looking kind of way. But they have a number of problems, when trying to decide what is really, really happening
1) The number of tess changes 2) The capacity is rocketing up. Which means that it is becoming easier to get a test again. 3) Testing is being dumped into the hotspots. 4) etc...
The only way to know what is happening is to run and infection survey. Fortunately, the ONS is doing exactly that. The latest data for infections per day looks like this -
The error bars on the daily figures must be pretty big.
They are - I could add them to the graph, I suppose....
Given we already know about how colourful Boris' personal life has been, seems a strange choice for the big scoop headline.
If Boris had done it fair enough but he cannot be responsible for his Father
Is this the best front page the mail on sunday can do
That suggests that the book is a bit of a bust for earth shattering revelations about Boris himself.
Bit like the Cameron biography?
The guy seems to have a vacuous personality constructed of bluster. Every report I have seen by anyone spending any time with him is that he is a hollow shell, that he lacks real ability, talent and warmth.
What sort of "... earth shattering revelations ..." could there be about such a person?
The only way to know what is happening is to run and infection survey. Fortunately, the ONS is doing exactly that. The latest data for infections per day looks like this -
I'm sure I read that the ONS survey was aiming to collect something like seven times as many samples, but I've read nothing about them doing more frequent releases or regional breakdowns. I assume the JBC is doing such analyses but is there anything public?
Sending students back into halls is still one of the dumbest things the government (of all the nations) has done.
Depends how you look at it. 1000s of young people will get mild or no symptoms and basically go through freshers flu month. Stop them going home before Xmas though. They will have to do their own washing this term.
I don’t see why this is necessarily a “problem”. It’s only a problem if you see number of cases as somehow the crucial number, as opposed to actual negative health outcomes. If any thing, every student in the country getting it in the next month whilst largely on campus and isolated from the majority of the “at risk” population would be a massive bonus.
All this is doing is adding an enormous number of “non dangerous” cases to the overall figures.
I believed somebody on here called it, that they will in the end pick somebody still of a particular leaning but less extreme after shifting the overton window.
I don’t see why this is necessarily a “problem”. It’s only a problem if you see number of cases as somehow the crucial number, as opposed to actual negative health outcomes. If any thing, every student in the country getting it in the next month whilst largely on campus and isolated from the majority of the “at risk” population would be a massive bonus.
All this is doing is adding an enormous number of “non dangerous” cases to the overall figures.
Only if you consider death to be the only relevant healthcare outcome. There are plenty of students with pre-existing conditions and others who will end up with Long Covid. Plus those who are asymptomatic and spread it into the community. It's definitely a problem.
In general it is known that Covid spreads rapidly through populations in poor closely spaced housing conditions. Well that describes students to a tee, however responsible they may have been. it is not something to “blame” them for.
Sending students back into halls is still one of the dumbest things the government (of all the nations) has done.
Depends how you look at it. 1000s of young people will get mild or no symptoms and basically go through freshers flu month. Stop them going home before Xmas though. They will have to do their own washing this term.
Yes but. I go into Newcastle city centre and there are huge numbers of students everywhere. And huge numbers of non-students too. Who then disperse to all parts of the NE. Many students live all over the City. Not every Uni is a self-contained Campus.
So. Can someone catch me up on today's data? Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
England saw cases double every ten days or so during September, as did the other UK nations. Remarkably this increase stopped this week, only in England while other nations continued to grow exponentially. It's probable that the exponential increase also happened in England but for some reason wasn't reported.
It was strange that R was above 1 but cases weren't going up.
Comments
He may be sending the odd tweet whilst on oxygen, it's possible, or it might be one of him team ghosting for him - it's not hard to imitate his style.
Either way I'd take official reports of his condition with a pinch of salt.
I'm sure you have seen this https://xkcd.com/1122/ before.
Put another way, if the trials had been designed so a candidate would only pass if it completely prevents infection in a large percentage of patients, we'd not expect to get one for several years. And if the trial were required the show that the risk of death were reduced we'd either need challenge trials or to wait years for the results.
The real question for patients should be: is it better to get this vaccine than not to get it? I've little doubt that these vaccines will pass that bar easily.
--AS
Which I think we need to look at the specimen dates.
"People with surnames beginning A-L are required to work from home, never use public transport or restaurants, never meet outside of their household, and wear a mask 24/7.
People with surnames beginning M-S must wear a mask inside shops and on public transport, and should meet in groups of no more than 6.
People with surnames beginning T-Z are forbidden from wearing masks, must eat only in restaurants in groups of at least 20, and are required to shake hands at least once every 5 minutes.
We will consider the outcomes in one month's time."
--AS
They are, remarkably, all just over 9 1/2 months older.
We might have to wait until into next week for this to clear up.
That has been the case for every US presidential election since 1950 with the exception of 1980 and 1988 and 1992 (though 1992 effectively followed the rule just it was 4 years delayed).
Now Biden could win as Reagan did in 1980 and may well do so but he would be very much the exception to the rule
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/09/21/the-vaccine-protocols
SO use of H2O not necessarily a sign of severity, though clearly we are NOT talking asymptomatic.
Note that heath of head of state and/or government has ALWAYS been considered a matter of state:as positive propaganda when good, and a state secret when not.
No different this time around. Just that White House is run by a bunch of reform school rejects and other criminal incompetents (also visa versa) who matriculated from drunk tanks and diploma mills (such as Wharton School of U of Penn).
Like R2=0.999. That's basically unbelievable? Is NC election infrastructure working at maximum capacity? Is there delays getting ballots out?
--AS
Think he is scandal proof anyway. Everyone knows he has no decency or morals, plenty forgive him and a few like that kind of thing.
Is this the best front page the mail on sunday can do
Why was it late? Why the excess catch up cases? Does this mean the level off of last week was a myth? Is there objective truth, and if so, how could we be sure we have ascertained it?
1) The number of tess changes
2) The capacity is rocketing up. Which means that it is becoming easier to get a test again.
3) Testing is being dumped into the hotspots.
4) etc...
The only way to know what is happening is to run and infection survey. Fortunately, the ONS is doing exactly that. The latest data for infections per day looks like this -
Bit like the Cameron biography?
(That's obviously the opposite of what I "expect" them to do, but is what they should do and why the criticism is deserved).
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1312486877035819008
1 Cases levelling off.
2 770 at Northumbria alone.
Didn't sit entirely right.
And @Malmesbury does a wonderful job. Thank you very much for your efforts.
The problem is that my system isn't setup to track backdating. I could compare the spreadsheet from yesterday and today..... hmmmmm.....
Meantime....
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1312441613503799296
It's his employee Cummings that he should do that to.
What sort of "... earth shattering revelations ..." could there be about such a person?
https://twitter.com/V2019N/status/1312480672649416704
https://twitter.com/JOR_ID/status/1311964322227257344
Next in the series, SKS?
I don’t see why this is necessarily a “problem”. It’s only a problem if you see number of cases as somehow the crucial number, as opposed to actual negative health outcomes. If any thing, every student in the country getting it in the next month whilst largely on campus and isolated from the majority of the “at risk” population would be a massive bonus.
All this is doing is adding an enormous number of “non dangerous” cases to the overall figures.
Even a free book on Corbyn might require dusting and shelf space. There is a better use of paper.
And huge numbers of non-students too.
Who then disperse to all parts of the NE.
Many students live all over the City.
Not every Uni is a self-contained Campus.
It was strange that R was above 1 but cases weren't going up.
33.8% of all eligible voters have requested an absentee ballot.