Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I think the Morning Consult data showed shy Trump voters tended to be high income voters and shy Biden voters tended to be poor voters with middle income voters not showing much reluctance to state their preference so you may be right.
PB posters tend to be higher iq and higher income than the average voter, hence there are fewer Leave and Trump supporters on here than the UK and US average
Trump is the only US President in my lifetime that I can recall that only really speaks to his own supporters rather than the nation as a whole.
Which is electoral folly, considering that re-election (and retention of political clout in second term) is almost always dependent on middle / moderate / swing voters.
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
Malmesbury's really helpful case data does seem to show a strong correlation between number of cases and number of university students, both in the top 50 areas and the bottom 50. While this is good news in a way, it simply isn't the case that students won't spread it into the community - unless they live like hermits, which they won't - especially if they don't have symptoms.
The majority of students don't live in halls of residences - this is largely just first years. And not many live on campus except in a few smaller universities that are some distance from city centres. Most students, especially in the larger cities, live in the community in rented accommodation. These students will spread the virus - in shops and pubs, on buses, and so on. They may also spread it to the many older staff (not just lecturers - porters, catering and cleaning staff and so on) on campus.
The idea that we can let it rip like wildfire through the student body without it spreading to the old and/or vulnerable, especially those who still work for a living, is for the birds.
I don't have an answer, but I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that we can relax a bit if it's 'only' students getting it in large numbers. Students in England have only been back at university a couple of weeks; it will take longer than this for the virus to spread in their communities.
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Maybe I have had too much absinthe tonight?
I think he definitely got Covid. The only plausible route for conspiracy theories is how bad it has been.
Trump definitely got Covid and I am sure was the main driver behind covering up how serious it was, somewhat exposing his doctor who was only authorised to tell positive news but didn't want to actually lie either.
On the asssumption that Trump will make a good enough recovery to continue his campaign, he will obviously leverage his infection for his campaign
Trump is perhaps doing his own equivalent of Johnson's appearance on the doorstep to Clap for Carers. Whether it is up or down from there is unknown.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
Exactly.
Its all so reality show.
He has it. He is milking it (badly) to try to gain sympathy. This is not impressing anyone apart from people already wedged up his backside. I'm not convinced this is particularly complex. With Trump it's best to reduce to the simplest scenario because he simply doesn't have the capacity for 4D chess.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
How about:
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Maybe I have had too much absinthe tonight?
I think he definitely got Covid. The only plausible route for conspiracy theories is how bad it has been.
Trump definitely got Covid and I am sure was the main driver behind covering up how serious it was, somewhat exposing his doctor who was only authorised to tell positive news but didn't want to actually lie either.
On the asssumption that Trump will make a good enough recovery to continue his campaign, he will obviously leverage his infection for his campaign
Trump is perhaps doing his own equivalent of Johnson's appearance on the doorstep to Clap for Carers. Whether it is up or down from there is unknown.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
Exactly.
Its all so reality show.
He has it. He is milking it (badly) to try to gain sympathy. This is not impressing anyone apart from people already wedged up his backside. I'm not convinced this is particularly complex. With Trump it's best to reduce to the simplest scenario because he simply doesn't have the capacity for 4D chess.
I wasn't suggesting he was faking COVID. I just don't know what to believe about the timeline, the seriousness, etc.
Worth a read here. This isn't great but as pointed out the levelling off was suggested by REACT, ONS and Symptom Survey. It's possible that the testing system finally has gotten its arse into gear and is back to picking up more infections. Still the fact that those 16k weren't included in test and trace is a real problem. It looks like the test results got to the people who took the test but the contact tracers didn't get the information. I think it's long past time to kick Serco into the sea and hand this over to the local authorities.
Massaging data like that is never a good idea. One reason I tend to believe in what I produce is because I don't twiddle it to make it "better"
The data added is from tests done by Universities, using their own medical labs to process them.
Sorry Malmesbury, you're better at data science than me. What is different between the two datasets?
How do we know this is all university labs by the way? Not that I think you're untrustworthy, but this sort of thing can become "received wisdom" without sources.
I am shit at data science. I know enough to be dangerous.
I trust MaxPB on this. He says that it is the University data. In addition, the extra cases in places full of students.
On the twitter link above, they are talking about removing data and moving what is left around. That is a RED FLAG.
It is very, very easy to let personal biases fuck this stuff up.
I got taught chemistry by a brilliant teacher. She set us a simple experiment - one of those "mark on the graph the readings over time".
Some people, consciously or unconsciously, "adjusted" the readings to what they thought the curve should be - and got it totally wrong.
The experiment was counterintuitive. And designed to teach you to record what you really see.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
That would, of course, also be bad but in a different way. The vaccine may well turn out to be an issue all on its own
Trump is the only US President in my lifetime that I can recall that only really speaks to his own supporters rather than the nation as a whole.
Which is electoral folly, considering that re-election (and retention of political clout in second term) is almost always dependent on middle / moderate / swing voters.
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
Incumbents always speak to their record: "I am busy bringing prosperity to America and protecting my fellow Americans, What's he doing?" Clearly Trump's playbook was going to be stock market boom and jobs data. He kept on talking about those right through his presidency. Unfortunately for him, Covid knocked that plan off course, so he has fallen back on a rerun of 2016 and the challenger fighting the establishment. Doesn't look like it will work. At least I hope not!
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
How about:
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
He's the world expert!
Oh, plus: Biden's a snowflake for avoiding Covid.
We are definitely being played in some way. The big filmed walk to the helicopter, the ride out in the car this evening. It all reality tv show and both unnecessary and not what is the usual protocol for heads of state.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
Rather than painting one another pictures why not read what the government is actually saying?
And compulsory vaccination of adults? Has there ever been such a thing? Do you seriously think a non-fascist government would get away with it?
Trump is the only US President in my lifetime that I can recall that only really speaks to his own supporters rather than the nation as a whole.
Which is electoral folly, considering that re-election (and retention of political clout in second term) is almost always dependent on middle / moderate / swing voters.
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
In 2016 Trump got just 41% of ideological moderates and only 10% of ideological liberals to vote for him but he still won thanks to the support of 81% of ideological conservatives.
Remember in the US only 26% of voters are liberals and 35% are conservatives so even if you lose moderates as long as you win conservatives as a Republican by a big margin you can still win as long as you avoid a landslide loss with moderates, only the Democratic candidate has to win moderates to win
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
I am not sure HMG could ever make the vaccine compulsory but airlines, cruise companies, hotels, travel insurance companies, companies recruiting new staff, universities, schools even, presumably could.
I am not very keen to fly under the current situation, but if I knew there was an effective vaccine and the airline was insisting everybody be vaccinated if feel ok to fly again.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
How about:
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
He's the world expert!
Oh, plus: Biden's a snowflake for avoiding Covid.
We are definitely being played in some way. The big filmed walk to the helicopter, the ride out in the car this evening. It all reality tv show and both unnecessary and not what is the usual protocol for heads of state.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
The logical thing to do is to vaccinate those people most likely to act as vectors for infection, plus those that are most vulnerable. If you do that, you dramatically lower the consequences.
Worth a read here. This isn't great but as pointed out the levelling off was suggested by REACT, ONS and Symptom Survey. It's possible that the testing system finally has gotten its arse into gear and is back to picking up more infections. Still the fact that those 16k weren't included in test and trace is a real problem. It looks like the test results got to the people who took the test but the contact tracers didn't get the information. I think it's long past time to kick Serco into the sea and hand this over to the local authorities.
Massaging data like that is never a good idea. One reason I tend to believe in what I produce is because I don't twiddle it to make it "better"
The data added is from tests done by Universities, using their own medical labs to process them.
Sorry Malmesbury, you're better at data science than me. What is different between the two datasets?
How do we know this is all university labs by the way? Not that I think you're untrustworthy, but this sort of thing can become "received wisdom" without sources.
I am shit at data science. I know enough to be dangerous.
I trust MaxPB on this. He says that it is the University data. In addition, the extra cases in places full of students.
On the twitter link above, they are talking about removing data and moving what is left around. That is a RED FLAG.
It is very, very easy to let personal biases fuck this stuff up.
I got taught chemistry by a brilliant teacher. She set us a simple experiment - one of those "mark on the graph the readings over time".
Some people, consciously or unconsciously, "adjusted" the readings to what they thought the curve should be - and got it totally wrong.
The experiment was counterintuitive. And designed to teach you to record what you really see.
For what it's worth, the way I read that was that she split the 15k from this weekend and distributed it to Saturday and Sunday because there wasn't an indication of which days they were attached to reporting wise, but you're right that's a slightly odd decision in hindsight.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
Exactly.
Its all so reality show.
He has it. He is milking it (badly) to try to gain sympathy. This is not impressing anyone apart from people already wedged up his backside. I'm not convinced this is particularly complex. With Trump it's best to reduce to the simplest scenario because he simply doesn't have the capacity for 4D chess.
I wasn't suggesting he was faking COVID. I just don't know what to believe about the timeline, the seriousness, etc.
Ah I understand now. Sorry you were getting balled up in my mind with Rottenborough's absinthe trip.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
I am not sure HMG could ever make the vaccine compulsory but airlines, cruise companies, hotels, travel insurance companies, companies recruiting new staff, universities, schools even, presumably could.
I am not very keen to fly under the current situation, but if I knew there was an effective vaccine and the airline was insisting everybody be vaccinated if feel ok to fly again.
Yeah I can guarantee that if a vaccine is available by next June when I go on a cruise with Celebrity they'll ask for proof of vaccination before going. They'll probably arrange one privately if you don't have it yet but I'm not convinced they'll let you aboard without one.
In other news: it's all falling apart, isn't it? And not just in the UK.
Yup.
And there's the very real chance that in 100 years time 2020 will be in all the books as the final tipping point for the climate. Only history nerds will very vaguely recollect an outbreak of a flu type disease with a name like corvid.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
I am not sure HMG could ever make the vaccine compulsory but airlines, cruise companies, hotels, travel insurance companies, companies recruiting new staff, universities, schools even, presumably could.
I am not very keen to fly under the current situation, but if I knew there was an effective vaccine and the airline was insisting everybody be vaccinated if feel ok to fly again.
Yeah I can guarantee that if a vaccine is available by next June when I go on a cruise with Celebrity they'll ask for proof of vaccination before going. They'll probably arrange one privately if you don't have it yet but I'm not convinced they'll let you aboard without one.
For sure. Same applies to my planned transatlantic crossing on QM2 next May.
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I think the Morning Consult data showed shy Trump voters tended to be high income voters and shy Biden voters tended to be poor voters with middle income voters not showing much reluctance to state their preference so you may be right.
PB posters tend to be higher iq and higher income than the average voter, hence there are fewer Leave and Trump supporters on here than the UK and US average
I think you mean fewer Trump supporters who would be prepared to admit it
In seriousness, I think @rcs1000 is right. If I went into Santa Monica and said I supported Trump, at best I would get a lot of rude comments and stares, at worst I might find myself having to deal with an assault by some bearded, tumeric latte drinking, media studies student.
Trump: What if I say I got covid? Would that help?
Pollsters: No idea.
Trump: I think it's great. I say I have it. We spend a day, maybe two, in hospital and then I come out and say I'm fine. Great doctors. I beat the disease. Hey, I've beaten the Chinese disease. Think about it. Turns the whole election upside down. What's not to like?
Maybe I have had too much absinthe tonight?
If it's fake then the commitment to the fakery is very strong, because they've also either faked ir deliberately created a cluster all around him.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
How about:
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
He's the world expert!
Oh, plus: Biden's a snowflake for avoiding Covid.
We are definitely being played in some way. The big filmed walk to the helicopter, the ride out in the car this evening. It all reality tv show and both unnecessary and not what is the usual protocol for heads of state.
The drive by takes the ******* cake! His minders must have had a lightbulb moment and thought that a cavalcade through Bethesda would be a great idea to pull back the election. Maybe they will be proven right.
By the way, where are Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill these days?
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I think the Morning Consult data showed shy Trump voters tended to be high income voters and shy Biden voters tended to be poor voters with middle income voters not showing much reluctance to state their preference so you may be right.
PB posters tend to be higher iq and higher income than the average voter, hence there are fewer Leave and Trump supporters on here than the UK and US average
Friend of mine just drove back to Seattle from Port Angeles on Olympic Peninsula just across Strait of Juan da Fuca from Victoria, BC. Didn't mention Biden signs, but did see some Trump signs, but MANY signs for Republican gubernatorial nominee Loren Culp. Who is a pro-gun town police chief from very small eastern WA town who vowed NOT to enforce new state gun control laws passed by public statewide majority vote.
Note that classic purpose of political signs in US elections is NOT persuasion but rather to build name identification. Especially in primaries or other low-turnout elections.
Further note that Culp used this tactic very successfully in the August 2020 primary, which was NOT low turnout but which did feature 36 candidates for governor! Backed by rural 2nd-amendment defenders who put up signs across their boondocks bastions, which clearly helped boost Culp into the primary Top Two to face incumbent Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee (who ran as pro-environmental candidate for president in early 2020) this Fall.
One thing to keep in mind re: political signage (at least in USA) is that there is a basic difference between a campaign that has a lot of signs on urban, suburban, even rural front lawns - places where actual voters actually live - versus campaign with lot of signs on rural crossroads, farm fences, apartments and out along street and highway right-of-ways.
In the first case, signs are linked pretty directly to voters. Though note a good grassroots (or astroturf) campaign can recruit sign locations from non-supporters esp early and for low-turnout elections.
In second instance, bit less direct voter linkage, because you can harvest large number of good (that is visible) locations. Suggestive of substantial support, but perhaps NOT as much as seeming meets the eye.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
How about:
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
He's the world expert!
Oh, plus: Biden's a snowflake for avoiding Covid.
We are definitely being played in some way. The big filmed walk to the helicopter, the ride out in the car this evening. It all reality tv show and both unnecessary and not what is the usual protocol for heads of state.
The drive by takes the ******* cake! His minders must have had a lightbulb moment and thought that a cavalcade through Bethesda would be a great idea to pull back the election. Maybe they will be proven right.
By the way, where are Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill these days?
I am applying to be a non-executive director on the Board of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The form asks for social media information and I am of course going to point them to what I write on my work blog and elsewhere.
Or do I simply tell them about the website and let them read what is written on there?
I doubt I’ll even get to the interview stage but I note from the information pack that winning candidates may even get to meet the Home Secretary. Which would be fun. For me.
Thanks in advance.
Be upfront. It is far better not to be accepted by them in the first place than it is to be accepted and then "fired" later if they find things they do not like that you could have disclosed earlier on.
I would agree. They should be looking for evidence that you are interested in the issues they face and have spoken intelligently about them. It should be a plus for your application. And if it’s not you might want to wonder if you are expected to be a merely decorative part of the Board rather than making a difference.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
I am not sure HMG could ever make the vaccine compulsory but airlines, cruise companies, hotels, travel insurance companies, companies recruiting new staff, universities, schools even, presumably could.
I am not very keen to fly under the current situation, but if I knew there was an effective vaccine and the airline was insisting everybody be vaccinated if feel ok to fly again.
Yeah I can guarantee that if a vaccine is available by next June when I go on a cruise with Celebrity they'll ask for proof of vaccination before going. They'll probably arrange one privately if you don't have it yet but I'm not convinced they'll let you aboard without one.
For sure. Same applies to my planned transatlantic crossing on QM2 next May.
Is Cunard any cop these days? P&O turned into Butlins at sea about five years ago and the food took a nosedive. Princess went the same way despite being excellent in the late 2000s and the reason I love cruises. I stick to Celebrity now since they’re the only ones who still feel luxurious without being stuffy.
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
How about:
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
He's the world expert!
Oh, plus: Biden's a snowflake for avoiding Covid.
We are definitely being played in some way. The big filmed walk to the helicopter, the ride out in the car this evening. It all reality tv show and both unnecessary and not what is the usual protocol for heads of state.
The drive by takes the ******* cake! His minders must have had a lightbulb moment and thought that a cavalcade through Bethesda would be a great idea to pull back the election. Maybe they will be proven right.
By the way, where are Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill these days?
It's all him, not his minders.
This is most likely correct. No professional political advisor is going to sanction that.
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
Rather than painting one another pictures why not read what the government is actually saying?
And compulsory vaccination of adults? Has there ever been such a thing? Do you seriously think a non-fascist government would get away with it?
Various childhood vaccines are mandatory in a dozen European countries, and used to be here - it's not that bizarre, since you['re only relatively safe if most other people are vaccinated - hence the outbreak of measles after the MMR scare. The general trend is towards requiring it, but it's more likely that in practice one will find it hard to access a variety of activities without it.
Trump is the only US President in my lifetime that I can recall that only really speaks to his own supporters rather than the nation as a whole.
Which is electoral folly, considering that re-election (and retention of political clout in second term) is almost always dependent on middle / moderate / swing voters.
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
In 2016 Trump got just 41% of ideological moderates and only 10% of ideological liberals to vote for him but he still won thanks to the support of 81% of ideological conservatives.
Remember in the US only 26% of voters are liberals and 35% are conservatives so even if you lose moderates as long as you win conservatives as a Republican by a big margin you can still win as long as you avoid a landslide loss with moderates, only the Democratic candidate has to win moderates to win
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I work for a charity which makes a point of not enquiring what anyone thinks about politics (like I suppose most employers). We had a team meeting the other day where the discussion drifted into the US elections, and people were taking for granted that we all loathed Trump. I said firmly that if anyone supported Trump they should feel to say so or not say so and shouldn't feel pressured. Everyone looked amused at the very idea, but it has to be said - people have a right to their opinions, full stop. It's one of the charms of PB that we pretty much accept that about each other - sometimes with a hint of derision, but still!
I'm sorry that MrEd encountered hostility - I hadn't seen that, and of course it shouldn't happen.
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I think the Morning Consult data showed shy Trump voters tended to be high income voters and shy Biden voters tended to be poor voters with middle income voters not showing much reluctance to state their preference so you may be right.
PB posters tend to be higher iq and higher income than the average voter, hence there are fewer Leave and Trump supporters on here than the UK and US average
Friend of mine just drove back to Seattle from Port Angeles on Olympic Peninsula just across Strait of Juan da Fuca from Victoria, BC. Didn't mention Biden signs, but did see some Trump signs, but MANY signs for Republican gubernatorial nominee Loren Culp. Who is a pro-gun town police chief from very small eastern WA town who vowed NOT to enforce new state gun control laws passed by public statewide majority vote.
Note that classic purpose of political signs in US elections is NOT persuasion but rather to build name identification. Especially in primaries or other low-turnout elections.
Further note that Culp used this tactic very successfully in the August 2020 primary, which was NOT low turnout but which did feature 36 candidates for governor! Backed by rural 2nd-amendment defenders who put up signs across their boondocks bastions, which clearly helped boost Culp into the primary Top Two to face incumbent Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee (who ran as pro-environmental candidate for president in early 2020) this Fall.
One thing to keep in mind re: political signage (at least in USA) is that there is a basic difference between a campaign that has a lot of signs on urban, suburban, even rural front lawns - places where actual voters actually live - versus campaign with lot of signs on rural crossroads, farm fences, apartments and out along street and highway right-of-ways.
In the first case, signs are linked pretty directly to voters. Though note a good grassroots (or astroturf) campaign can recruit sign locations from non-supporters esp early and for low-turnout elections.
In second instance, bit less direct voter linkage, because you can harvest large number of good (that is visible) locations. Suggestive of substantial support, but perhaps NOT as much as seeming meets the eye.
Have a like. If only for a rare PB outing for Victoria BC, my old home town.
Trump is the only US President in my lifetime that I can recall that only really speaks to his own supporters rather than the nation as a whole.
Which is electoral folly, considering that re-election (and retention of political clout in second term) is almost always dependent on middle / moderate / swing voters.
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
In 2016 Trump got just 41% of ideological moderates and only 10% of ideological liberals to vote for him but he still won thanks to the support of 81% of ideological conservatives.
Remember in the US only 26% of voters are liberals and 35% are conservatives so even if you lose moderates as long as you win conservatives as a Republican by a big margin you can still win as long as you avoid a landslide loss with moderates, only the Democratic candidate has to win moderates to win
Trump Didn’t Disclose First Positive Covid-19 Test While Awaiting a Second Test on Thursday President received positive result on Thursday evening before making an appearance on Fox News in which he didn’t reveal those results
Vaccinating those at risk vs. vaccinating everyone has the same effect - far less pressure on the NHS.
No, it doesn’t unless you assume a 100% effective vaccine. If you’re at 75% (which is the goal of the first stage checkpoints in most of the trials) then 25% of vulnerable people will potentially get it if you’re leaving over half the population unvaccinated. It’s bad epidemiological practice.
This isn’t going to happen. It particularly won’t fly if France, Germany and the US vaccinate their whole populations. I expect a furious back-pedal which goes “we mean we won’t vaccinate everyone straight away”.
I keep saying that perception matters more than facts.
If the public think that they will not be getting the vaccine to protect them from this killer virus, then that is what will cause trouble.
The govt has spent month reminding us all how dangerous covid is and they have succeeded in scaring a large portion of the populace. These people are now expecting a vaccine.
Spot on!
Of course it isn't.
Most vulnerable people I know are very nervous about taking a vaccine developed in some haste.
I suspect the problem will be the complete reverse -- namely, actually persuading enough people (especially in the vulnerable category) to take the vaccine.
Of course people would be nervous about taking a vaccine that has not been fully tested but that is not what we are arguing about here.
First I'd expect any vaccine offered by the NHS to be fully tested. Secondly, whether people choose to take the vaccine or not is a completely different question to whether it would be right for the government to only offer the vaccine to a subset of society.
First, it is clear that the long-term side-effects of any vaccine cannot be assessed if the vaccine is developed in under a year or so. So to talk of a "fully tested" vaccine is not really correct.
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
Rather than painting one another pictures why not read what the government is actually saying?
And compulsory vaccination of adults? Has there ever been such a thing? Do you seriously think a non-fascist government would get away with it?
Various childhood vaccines are mandatory in a dozen European countries, and used to be here - it's not that bizarre, since you['re only relatively safe if most other people are vaccinated - hence the outbreak of measles after the MMR scare. The general trend is towards requiring it, but it's more likely that in practice one will find it hard to access a variety of activities without it.
Yes, there's a long history of mandatory *childhood* vaccination. Absolutely none of adults. A gross infringement of liberty and human rights, physically impossible without forcible detention, ethically impossible for doctors to administer, politically impossible against a libertarian/anti vaxx/anti tory alliance, and hugely damaging to confidence in medicine.
Are we converging on the point where it is again permissible to suggest that if the fat old fraud did pop his clogs it wouldn't be the worst tragedy since Coriolanus, or do I give it another 48 hours?
I really don't know what to believe about the Trump COVID situation now.
How about:
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
He's the world expert!
Oh, plus: Biden's a snowflake for avoiding Covid.
We are definitely being played in some way. The big filmed walk to the helicopter, the ride out in the car this evening. It all reality tv show and both unnecessary and not what is the usual protocol for heads of state.
The drive by takes the ******* cake! His minders must have had a lightbulb moment and thought that a cavalcade through Bethesda would be a great idea to pull back the election. Maybe they will be proven right.
By the way, where are Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill these days?
Timbo popped up on Peston this week. Fi not spotted recently.
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I work for a charity which makes a point of not enquiring what anyone thinks about politics (like I suppose most employers). We had a team meeting the other day where the discussion drifted into the US elections, and people were taking for granted that we all loathed Trump. I said firmly that if anyone supported Trump they should feel to say so or not say so and shouldn't feel pressured. Everyone looked amused at the very idea, but it has to be said - people have a right to their opinions, full stop. It's one of the charms of PB that we pretty much accept that about each other - sometimes with a hint of derision, but still!
I'm sorry that MrEd encountered hostility - I hadn't seen that, and of course it shouldn't happen.
Thanks @NickPalmer it wasn’t exactly the most terrifying experience However, as I said at the time, the most ironic thing was it was the ones who have generally been most hostile to the “Shy Trump” theory that we’re doing their best to prove why it might be true.
Going back to the argument re Shy Trump / Shy Biden voters. I think one fundamental difference (or maybe I am imaging this) is that Shy Trumpsters who work in the professions feel they have a lot more to lose
Trump is the only US President in my lifetime that I can recall that only really speaks to his own supporters rather than the nation as a whole.
Which is electoral folly, considering that re-election (and retention of political clout in second term) is almost always dependent on middle / moderate / swing voters.
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
In 2016 Trump got just 41% of ideological moderates and only 10% of ideological liberals to vote for him but he still won thanks to the support of 81% of ideological conservatives.
Remember in the US only 26% of voters are liberals and 35% are conservatives so even if you lose moderates as long as you win conservatives as a Republican by a big margin you can still win as long as you avoid a landslide loss with moderates, only the Democratic candidate has to win moderates to win
Don't think it prudent to bet on sharp percents at a time when political allegiances are somewhat in flux.
For one thing, fewer folks are calling themselves "liberals" while more & more prefer to self-identify as "progressives".
Whether you call yourself liberal or used to call yourself liberal but now call yourself progressive or even socialist it does not really matter, you are still swimming in the same pool and neither conservative nor moderate
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I work for a charity which makes a point of not enquiring what anyone thinks about politics (like I suppose most employers). We had a team meeting the other day where the discussion drifted into the US elections, and people were taking for granted that we all loathed Trump. I said firmly that if anyone supported Trump they should feel to say so or not say so and shouldn't feel pressured. Everyone looked amused at the very idea, but it has to be said - people have a right to their opinions, full stop. It's one of the charms of PB that we pretty much accept that about each other - sometimes with a hint of derision, but still!
I'm sorry that MrEd encountered hostility - I hadn't seen that, and of course it shouldn't happen.
Thanks @NickPalmer it wasn’t exactly the most terrifying experience However, as I said at the time, the most ironic thing was it was the ones who have generally been most hostile to the “Shy Trump” theory that we’re doing their best to prove why it might be true.
Going back to the argument re Shy Trump / Shy Biden voters. I think one fundamental difference (or maybe I am imaging this) is that Shy Trumpsters who work in the professions feel they have a lot more to lose
Certainly if you said you supported Trump in Malibu or Beverley Hills or Manhattan or Martha's Vineyard or Palm Beach never mind not being invited to dinner you would probably not even be allowed in the house!
Malmesbury's really helpful case data does seem to show a strong correlation between number of cases and number of university students, both in the top 50 areas and the bottom 50. While this is good news in a way, it simply isn't the case that students won't spread it into the community - unless they live like hermits, which they won't - especially if they don't have symptoms.
The majority of students don't live in halls of residences - this is largely just first years. And not many live on campus except in a few smaller universities that are some distance from city centres. Most students, especially in the larger cities, live in the community in rented accommodation. These students will spread the virus - in shops and pubs, on buses, and so on. They may also spread it to the many older staff (not just lecturers - porters, catering and cleaning staff and so on) on campus.
The idea that we can let it rip like wildfire through the student body without it spreading to the old and/or vulnerable, especially those who still work for a living, is for the birds.
I don't have an answer, but I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that we can relax a bit if it's 'only' students getting it in large numbers. Students in England have only been back at university a couple of weeks; it will take longer than this for the virus to spread in their communities.
Spot on as per usual mate.
I'm deeply concerned with arrogance creeping in once again, this time the idea that it will only impact people that won't have any issues, as you say.
We really don't know the long-term implications of having this virus even mildly, it seems naive and dangerous to assume that if young people get it mildly it will be fine. We really don't know.
Trump is the only US President in my lifetime that I can recall that only really speaks to his own supporters rather than the nation as a whole.
Which is electoral folly, considering that re-election (and retention of political clout in second term) is almost always dependent on middle / moderate / swing voters.
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
In 2016 Trump got just 41% of ideological moderates and only 10% of ideological liberals to vote for him but he still won thanks to the support of 81% of ideological conservatives.
Remember in the US only 26% of voters are liberals and 35% are conservatives so even if you lose moderates as long as you win conservatives as a Republican by a big margin you can still win as long as you avoid a landslide loss with moderates, only the Democratic candidate has to win moderates to win
Don't think it prudent to bet on sharp percents at a time when political allegiances are somewhat in flux.
For one thing, fewer folks are calling themselves "liberals" while more & more prefer to self-identify as "progressives".
Whether you call yourself liberal or used to call yourself liberal but now call yourself progressive or even socialist it does not really matter, you are still swimming in the same pool and neither conservative nor moderate
Disagree, specifically as
1. Conservatives and Republicans (and visa versa) spent LOTS of blood, sweat and (Democratic) tears demonizing the term liberal as meaning radical (or loony) lefty, thus dissuading left-of-center types from this moniker.
2. At same time, left populist as well as democratic and other kinds of socialists also reject the liberal label, as early as 1948 (Henry Wallace and Progressive Party) appropriating the progressive brand. Which hiterto had been associated with early 20th c liberal middle-class reformers such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Robert LaFollette.
3. Thus both lefty and left-of-center voters are more likely in 2020 to self-identify as progressive instead of liberal. AND if forced to accept or reject the liberal label, some, esp. from the non-radical camp, will opt for moderate over liberal.
IMHO that is; don't have proof though (like Existence of God) it may indeed exist!
"77% of Trump supporters would not admit it to friends or family members".
I call bulls*t!
Well, from a personal standpoint, I can testify to that and the abuse I got on PB.com for saying I would vote for him ironically demonstrated why many are reluctant to say that they would....
I think it depends on where, and with whom, you hangout.
When I was in rural Arizona, there were massive numbers of Trump posters, and flags. And these were big too: proper make sure everyone knows you're a supporter.
There are no shy Trump voters in Holbrook, AZ.
By contrast, if you are in Santa Monica, CA, then the place is positively infected with prissy little Biden-Harris signs. There might very well be shy Trump supporters in Santa Monica.
But here's the thing... if you head to Holbrook, and all your neigbours have big Trump signs, well you just might be a shy Biden supporter.
I think the Morning Consult data showed shy Trump voters tended to be high income voters and shy Biden voters tended to be poor voters with middle income voters not showing much reluctance to state their preference so you may be right.
PB posters tend to be higher iq and higher income than the average voter, hence there are fewer Leave and Trump supporters on here than the UK and US average
Friend of mine just drove back to Seattle from Port Angeles on Olympic Peninsula just across Strait of Juan da Fuca from Victoria, BC. Didn't mention Biden signs, but did see some Trump signs, but MANY signs for Republican gubernatorial nominee Loren Culp. Who is a pro-gun town police chief from very small eastern WA town who vowed NOT to enforce new state gun control laws passed by public statewide majority vote.
Note that classic purpose of political signs in US elections is NOT persuasion but rather to build name identification. Especially in primaries or other low-turnout elections.
Further note that Culp used this tactic very successfully in the August 2020 primary, which was NOT low turnout but which did feature 36 candidates for governor! Backed by rural 2nd-amendment defenders who put up signs across their boondocks bastions, which clearly helped boost Culp into the primary Top Two to face incumbent Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee (who ran as pro-environmental candidate for president in early 2020) this Fall.
One thing to keep in mind re: political signage (at least in USA) is that there is a basic difference between a campaign that has a lot of signs on urban, suburban, even rural front lawns - places where actual voters actually live - versus campaign with lot of signs on rural crossroads, farm fences, apartments and out along street and highway right-of-ways.
In the first case, signs are linked pretty directly to voters. Though note a good grassroots (or astroturf) campaign can recruit sign locations from non-supporters esp early and for low-turnout elections.
In second instance, bit less direct voter linkage, because you can harvest large number of good (that is visible) locations. Suggestive of substantial support, but perhaps NOT as much as seeming meets the eye.
Have a like. If only for a rare PB outing for Victoria BC, my old home town.
Victoria is indeed a rare gem. Spectacular geographic & environmental setting, a small city surrounded by quirky suburbsPerfect place to spend a day and a hundred or two loonies.
Also one reason why American's are willing to forgive James K. Polk for finking out on "Fifty-Four-Forty or Fight!" Because impossible to imagine an American Victoria, just no point for retired British colonels OR boatloads of American tourists.
Fact that Victoria requires a ferry or plane ride to reach definitely cuts down on t he riff-raff
Though hardly fool-proof, as somehow both me & DD somehow slipped through the cordon sanitaire!
Comments
Second, whether people take the vaccine up is critical (cf measles). If there is widespread scepticism of the safety of vaccine, then take up may well be poorish and then there is no herd immunity. If, for example, there is a suspicion that politicians have rushed a vaccine prematurely -- whether the suspicion is correct or not -- then that will affect take up and hence efficacy.
In fact, rather than the picture that Beibheirl painted, I think the more difficult decision for the Government is going to be whether to make the vaccination compulsory for certain categories of individuals.
PB posters tend to be higher iq and higher income than the average voter, hence there are fewer Leave and Trump supporters on here than the UK and US average
MANY of whom are inclined to support giving sitting presidents second terms, unless and until given STRONG reasons for rejecting the incumbent, reasons that typically are NOT ideological but both more concrete (esp. economic) and intangible (aversion v attraction to celebrity politicos).
The majority of students don't live in halls of residences - this is largely just first years. And not many live on campus except in a few smaller universities that are some distance from city centres. Most students, especially in the larger cities, live in the community in rented accommodation. These students will spread the virus - in shops and pubs, on buses, and so on. They may also spread it to the many older staff (not just lecturers - porters, catering and cleaning staff and so on) on campus.
The idea that we can let it rip like wildfire through the student body without it spreading to the old and/or vulnerable, especially those who still work for a living, is for the birds.
I don't have an answer, but I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that we can relax a bit if it's 'only' students getting it in large numbers. Students in England have only been back at university a couple of weeks; it will take longer than this for the virus to spread in their communities.
Trump's had a mild case of Covid.
He tested positive on Thursday which he kept quiet and had a follow-up test in the evening which was also positive. At which point he got worried, started feeling ill.
By Friday, he'd panicked everyone around him and had to be rushed to hospital.
But it soon bcame clear that his case was mild, so now he's 'conquered Covid' and nobody knows more about Covid than Trump.
He's the world expert!
Oh, plus: Biden's a snowflake for avoiding Covid.
I trust MaxPB on this. He says that it is the University data. In addition, the extra cases in places full of students.
On the twitter link above, they are talking about removing data and moving what is left around. That is a RED FLAG.
It is very, very easy to let personal biases fuck this stuff up.
I got taught chemistry by a brilliant teacher. She set us a simple experiment - one of those "mark on the graph the readings over time".
Some people, consciously or unconsciously, "adjusted" the readings to what they thought the curve should be - and got it totally wrong.
The experiment was counterintuitive. And designed to teach you to record what you really see.
And compulsory vaccination of adults? Has there ever been such a thing? Do you seriously think a non-fascist government would get away with it?
Remember in the US only 26% of voters are liberals and 35% are conservatives so even if you lose moderates as long as you win conservatives as a Republican by a big margin you can still win as long as you avoid a landslide loss with moderates, only the Democratic candidate has to win moderates to win
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
I am not very keen to fly under the current situation, but if I knew there was an effective vaccine and the airline was insisting everybody be vaccinated if feel ok to fly again.
Vote to give the circus another four years!
Trump is feeling better, gets back on the campaign trail from Tuesday.
But he's not really recovered, not by a long-chalk.
Rest of the campaign: either a generally lacklustre Trump failing to make any inroads into Biden's lead.
Or, worse for Trump, a more serious meltdown/relapse in the next 2-3 weeks effectively ends the contest.
And there's the very real chance that in 100 years time 2020 will be in all the books as the final tipping point for the climate. Only history nerds will very vaguely recollect an outbreak of a flu type disease with a name like corvid.
In seriousness, I think @rcs1000 is right. If I went into Santa Monica and said I supported Trump, at best I would get a lot of rude comments and stares, at worst I might find myself having to deal with an assault by some bearded, tumeric latte drinking, media studies student.
We don't know
The World is ending.
By the way, where are Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill these days?
Friend of mine just drove back to Seattle from Port Angeles on Olympic Peninsula just across Strait of Juan da Fuca from Victoria, BC. Didn't mention Biden signs, but did see some Trump signs, but MANY signs for Republican gubernatorial nominee Loren Culp. Who is a pro-gun town police chief from very small eastern WA town who vowed NOT to enforce new state gun control laws passed by public statewide majority vote.
Note that classic purpose of political signs in US elections is NOT persuasion but rather to build name identification. Especially in primaries or other low-turnout elections.
Further note that Culp used this tactic very successfully in the August 2020 primary, which was NOT low turnout but which did feature 36 candidates for governor! Backed by rural 2nd-amendment defenders who put up signs across their boondocks bastions, which clearly helped boost Culp into the primary Top Two to face incumbent Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee (who ran as pro-environmental candidate for president in early 2020) this Fall.
One thing to keep in mind re: political signage (at least in USA) is that there is a basic difference between a campaign that has a lot of signs on urban, suburban, even rural front lawns - places where actual voters actually live - versus campaign with lot of signs on rural crossroads, farm fences, apartments and out along street and highway right-of-ways.
In the first case, signs are linked pretty directly to voters. Though note a good grassroots (or astroturf) campaign can recruit sign locations from non-supporters esp early and for low-turnout elections.
In second instance, bit less direct voter linkage, because you can harvest large number of good (that is visible) locations. Suggestive of substantial support, but perhaps NOT as much as seeming meets the eye.
He is an abomination
https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/mandatory-vaccination-work-europe/comment-page-1/
For one thing, fewer folks are calling themselves "liberals" while more & more prefer to self-identify as "progressives".
I'm sorry that MrEd encountered hostility - I hadn't seen that, and of course it shouldn't happen.
The man has Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
President received positive result on Thursday evening before making an appearance on Fox News in which he didn’t reveal those results
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-didnt-disclose-first-positive-covid-19-test-while-awaiting-a-second-test-on-thursday-11601844813
Going back to the argument re Shy Trump / Shy Biden voters. I think one fundamental difference (or maybe I am imaging this) is that Shy Trumpsters who work in the professions feel they have a lot more to lose
The guy is a sick joke.
I'm deeply concerned with arrogance creeping in once again, this time the idea that it will only impact people that won't have any issues, as you say.
We really don't know the long-term implications of having this virus even mildly, it seems naive and dangerous to assume that if young people get it mildly it will be fine. We really don't know.
1. Conservatives and Republicans (and visa versa) spent LOTS of blood, sweat and (Democratic) tears demonizing the term liberal as meaning radical (or loony) lefty, thus dissuading left-of-center types from this moniker.
2. At same time, left populist as well as democratic and other kinds of socialists also reject the liberal label, as early as 1948 (Henry Wallace and Progressive Party) appropriating the progressive brand. Which hiterto had been associated with early 20th c liberal middle-class reformers such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Robert LaFollette.
3. Thus both lefty and left-of-center voters are more likely in 2020 to self-identify as progressive instead of liberal. AND if forced to accept or reject the liberal label, some, esp. from the non-radical camp, will opt for moderate over liberal.
IMHO that is; don't have proof though (like Existence of God) it may indeed exist!
Also one reason why American's are willing to forgive James K. Polk for finking out on "Fifty-Four-Forty or Fight!" Because impossible to imagine an American Victoria, just no point for retired British colonels OR boatloads of American tourists.
Fact that Victoria requires a ferry or plane ride to reach definitely cuts down on t he riff-raff
Though hardly fool-proof, as somehow both me & DD somehow slipped through the cordon sanitaire!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/upshot/poll-2020-election-method.html
This in particular struck me re the response rate:
Does anyone pick up the phone anymore?
Some people do. Just not many. We usually complete interviews with about 1 or 2 percent of the voters we try to reach.: