Certainly if Trump were to win Arizona and Florida as new polls out today show he would then he would only need to win 1 of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan on UNS to win the EC again and be re elected
Applying your dubious logic that the most recent poll "shows" who is going to win what, Biden would win Texas, North Carolina and Iowa, as well as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (easily).
Taking a more sensible approach - looking at a range of recent polls for each state - Texas and Iowa remain pretty likely to be carried by Trump (though either could be uncomfortably close for him); North Carolina, Florida and Arizona look close (leaning slightly to Biden but could easily flip if his national lead softens); and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan look as if they need quite a substantial move in the national picture to be very competitive.
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
NIESR also as pessimistic as my morning update, they also think we've hit the wall of easily recoverable GDP.
This is going to get very bad, the government isn't fit for purpose if they can't run the economy.
I tried to tell you that a V-shaped recovery was VERY unlikely, because a "2nd wave" was coming
It should have been, the government's absolutely rubbish policies are why we are where we are. Italy just posted industrial production of just -0.3% YoY while we're at -7% for the same measure. The difference is that Italy has had a coherent national economic policy and strategy coming out of an outbreak as bad as ours. It should be a wake up call to everyone involved when Italy is an example of good governance and the UK isn't.
The government isn't fit for purpose.
I'm not particularly defending this government, they've made some terrible decisions, but the same can be said for quite a few western governments. As for GDP falls, I reckon they will end up much the same in most of western Europe - i.e. the UK, Spain, Italy, France will also suffer horrifically. We might end up marginally worse, or marginally better. Dunno.
Germany and Sweden will almost definitely do better than the rest.
Germany, yes, but Sweden's not looking very good at all. Norway's looking very good in comparison, as is Finland. But, like Sweden, hard to scale up from there.
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Penn is closer than Wisconsin.
Trump won Wisconsin by more than he won Pennsylvania in 2016, Biden was born and raised in Pennsylvania and Trafalgar have had Biden ahead in all their Pennsylvania polls this year but Trump ahead in 2/3 of their Wisconsin polls
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
Grim.
Remember all the claims of 0.1% fatality rates by sceptics?
Are you confusing cases with populations?
No. At 1000 per million dead that couldn't be a 0.1% fatality rate (which was patently bollocks all along) unless 100% of the population was infected already.
Now I am really confused. are you saying the Peru figures were bollocks all along, are you saying the sceptics were predicting 0.1% population or CFR, were they saying as many as 0.1% or as few as 0.1%, are you saying they were right or wrong, what were they sceptical about?
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Penn is closer than Wisconsin.
Trump won Wisconsin by more than he won Pennsylvania in 2016, Biden was born and raised in Pennsylvania and Trafalgar have had Biden ahead in all their Pennsylvania polls this year but Trump ahead in 2/3 of their Wisconsin polls
Ok? That doesn't change the fact that on the whole, the polls in Pennsylvania are closer than in Wisconsin.
What I'd do (obviously HMG version would need a bit more legalese):
Universities - put all onsite students, staff and contractors of named universities and student residrnces in sub-Greencore style external lockdown. You can still go on campus for both learning and on-campus gyms/sports (unless actually quarantined), but SU bar is closed. You cannot go to public bars or restaurants (except for takeaway), gyms, sports, cinemas etc. and cannot continue any indoors employment off campus. Go home for exceptional reasons only (such reasons are pretty much laid out already in local lockdowns), but isolate once away from university even if negative.
Applies to all uni-level institutions in NW ex-Cumbria & Cheshire, Yorks ex-Humber & Kirklees, NE, WMids Metro ex Wolves, Nottingham, Exeter. This would be a running list.
But to look at the distribution, university otherwise only cover 10-15% of all cases. Isolating them from wider communities is necessary but not sufficient. So:
Further lockdowns: Pub and restaurant regs as per Scotland (i.e. outside only, further reduced hours, safe standing around a table OK, and encourage appropriate outdoor spaces to be made available for licensees) for Liverpool, Kniowsley, St Helens, Burnley, Pendle, Bolton, Salford, Manchester, Bradford (city wards only), Leeds (city wards only), Sheffield, Nottingham, Newcastle, Gateshead, Middleborough, Durham City, Birmingham, Exeter - no forced closures yet. (NB, prep for a bracing outdoors winter of socialising is why I'm advocating staying on BST or maybe even Double Summer Time).
Probably a few spots to add to standard lockdown as well.
So I, a mature student who owns his own home on the edges of the city, would not allowed to go to a pub or a restaurant, even on my own or with my girlfriend (who I am in a bubble with)?
Also impossible to police, so doomed to fail from day 1.
Eldest Granddaughter is in a similar position. Mature student, lives with boy-friend, who works full-time, sometimes at home sometimes in the office. Long term lease on their home. Actually attends Uni, not in the city in which they live, around once per month, otherwise everything is on line.
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
Grim.
Remember all the claims of 0.1% fatality rates by sceptics?
Are you confusing cases with populations?
No. At 1000 per million dead that couldn't be a 0.1% fatality rate (which was patently bollocks all along) unless 100% of the population was infected already.
Now I am really confused. are you saying the Peru figures were bollocks all along, are you saying the sceptics were predicting 0.1% population or CFR, were they saying as many as 0.1% or as few as 0.1%, are you saying they were right or wrong, what were they sceptical about?
Peru figures are probably an underestimate if anything.
I'm saying the 0.1% CFR claimed by the lockdown sceptics was always patently absurd. The idea this was only a 0.1% fatality was clearly nonsense and Peru proves it, 0.1% of their entire country is dead now and it isn't over there yet.
NIESR also as pessimistic as my morning update, they also think we've hit the wall of easily recoverable GDP.
This is going to get very bad, the government isn't fit for purpose if they can't run the economy.
I tried to tell you that a V-shaped recovery was VERY unlikely, because a "2nd wave" was coming
It should have been, the government's absolutely rubbish policies are why we are where we are. Italy just posted industrial production of just -0.3% YoY while we're at -7% for the same measure. The difference is that Italy has had a coherent national economic policy and strategy coming out of an outbreak as bad as ours. It should be a wake up call to everyone involved when Italy is an example of good governance and the UK isn't.
The government isn't fit for purpose.
I'm not particularly defending this government, they've made some terrible decisions, but the same can be said for quite a few western governments. As for GDP falls, I reckon they will end up much the same in most of western Europe - i.e. the UK, Spain, Italy, France will also suffer horrifically. We might end up marginally worse, or marginally better. Dunno.
Germany and Sweden will almost definitely do better than the rest.
I think all governments started with a blank slate after May when the infection rate was negligible. We wasted that time and didn't have any kind of strategy to avoid or mitigate a second wave. I'll do a proper lengthy post on it at some point, but it will be an amalgamation of what many of us (including you as well, Sean) have been saying on here for months.
Sean who? Please call me LadyG.
Sadly I agree that much time and effort was wasted. I remember the government saying the entire strategy of the spring was to "avoid a catastrophic second lockdown" which would be "the worst case scenario for the economy" and so on. The scientists repeated this mantra many times, likewise the pols.
Well, here we are. A second lockdown, possibly worse and longer than the first.
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Penn is closer than Wisconsin.
Trump won Wisconsin by more than he won Pennsylvania in 2016, Biden was born and raised in Pennsylvania and Trafalgar have had Biden ahead in all their Pennsylvania polls this year but Trump ahead in 2/3 of their Wisconsin polls
Ok? That doesn't change the fact that on the whole, the polls in Pennsylvania are closer than in Wisconsin.
The only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Pennsylvania in their final poll in 2016 was Trafalgar
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
Grim.
Remember all the claims of 0.1% fatality rates by sceptics?
Are you confusing cases with populations?
No. At 1000 per million dead that couldn't be a 0.1% fatality rate (which was patently bollocks all along) unless 100% of the population was infected already.
Now I am really confused. are you saying the Peru figures were bollocks all along, are you saying the sceptics were predicting 0.1% population or CFR, were they saying as many as 0.1% or as few as 0.1%, are you saying they were right or wrong, what were they sceptical about?
Gupta famously said, in late May:
"The true infection fatality rate is definitely lower than one in a thousand and probably closer to one in ten thousand."
Given herd immunity, that would mean that herd immunity HAD to be reached by the time a given city, country, or state had lost 0.067% of its population and probably by the time it had lost 0.0067%.
So, say, for London, probably by the time 595 people had died and certainly by the time 5,950 had died. (Spoiler: it's already above the latter number with no sign of herd immunity yet).
So Peru should have maxed out at about a fifteenth of it's current death toll, and definitely by two thirds. Either literally everyone's been infected and it's all gone away, or people are getting it repeatedly.
Or, more plausibly, that the estimate of 0.01% to 0.1% IFR was total mince.
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Penn is closer than Wisconsin.
Trump won Wisconsin by more than he won Pennsylvania in 2016, Biden was born and raised in Pennsylvania and Trafalgar have had Biden ahead in all their Pennsylvania polls this year but Trump ahead in 2/3 of their Wisconsin polls
Ok? That doesn't change the fact that on the whole, the polls in Pennsylvania are closer than in Wisconsin.
The only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Pennsylvania in their final poll in 2016 was Trafalgar
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Penn is closer than Wisconsin.
Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.
Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).
I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).
Arizona has, after all, been an economic success over the last four years.
The problem President Trump has is that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennylvania are 44th, 48th and 41st in terms of economic performance over the last four years. (Iowa is 49th, which is why it is also at risk of potentially flipping.)
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that President Trump has followed economic policies that have been great for San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle, which are in states which hate him, rather than policies that benefited the states that got him elected.
What's worse is that he started his term with a promise of a trillion dollar infrastructure spend, much of which was to be focused on the Midwest, only to dump it in favour of tax cuts that were targeted at the ultra wealthy.
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
My brother lives in Pisac, Peru. He has been keeping me updated on the situation there from the get-go. Peru has had draconian lockdowns, curfews, masks, no bars or cafes, the works. And it has been rigorously enforced.
It has arguably failed. They are past the 2nd wave but with hints of a 3rd?
My brother is one of the smartest people I know (a true autodidact). He is ferociously anti-lockdown and predicted it wouldn't work from the start. He feels vindicated, but bitter
I'm not claiming to agree with him. But I offer that nugget for the attention of PBers.
Its not a case of agreeing, he has given you facts. A draconian lockdown, curfews, masks etc etc did not work.
NIESR also as pessimistic as my morning update, they also think we've hit the wall of easily recoverable GDP.
This is going to get very bad, the government isn't fit for purpose if they can't run the economy.
I tried to tell you that a V-shaped recovery was VERY unlikely, because a "2nd wave" was coming
It should have been, the government's absolutely rubbish policies are why we are where we are. Italy just posted industrial production of just -0.3% YoY while we're at -7% for the same measure. The difference is that Italy has had a coherent national economic policy and strategy coming out of an outbreak as bad as ours. It should be a wake up call to everyone involved when Italy is an example of good governance and the UK isn't.
The government isn't fit for purpose.
I'm not particularly defending this government, they've made some terrible decisions, but the same can be said for quite a few western governments. As for GDP falls, I reckon they will end up much the same in most of western Europe - i.e. the UK, Spain, Italy, France will also suffer horrifically. We might end up marginally worse, or marginally better. Dunno.
Germany and Sweden will almost definitely do better than the rest.
I think all governments started with a blank slate after May when the infection rate was negligible. We wasted that time and didn't have any kind of strategy to avoid or mitigate a second wave. I'll do a proper lengthy post on it at some point, but it will be an amalgamation of what many of us (including you as well, Sean) have been saying on here for months.
Sean who? Please call me LadyG.
Sadly I agree that much time and effort was wasted. I remember the government saying the entire strategy of the spring was to "avoid a catastrophic second lockdown" which would be "the worst case scenario for the economy" and so on. The scientists repeated this mantra many times, likewise the pols.
Well, here we are. A second lockdown, possibly worse and longer than the first.
The scientists and the politicians have failed.
Okay, I didn't want to have to engage with this silly buggery but this is such a blatant mischaracterisation of the aim of the first lockdown that it really needs challenged. The objective of any lockdown is not to get rid of the virus. It is to reduce it to a level where infection control measures can be effective. That means test, trace and isolate, border restrictions, mask wearing and local restrictions if necessary. Someone described it as "The Hammer and the Dance".
The lockdown succeeded in doing that, but the government relaxed it too early, opened the borders too freely, failed at the "trace and isolate" part of "test, trace and isolate" by having this stupid centralised contact tracing/no income support for isolators and had such mixed messaging that it damaged public compliance with measures. That is the failing here, not the lockdown.
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Penn is closer than Wisconsin.
Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.
Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).
I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).
Worth noting that Wisconsin has the worst net favourable numbers for President Trump of all the swing states. He polls worse on favourable/unfavourable there than in Virginia, Maine or New Hampshire.
Assuming we put aside Trafalgar's slightly... iffy reputation for polling (as ever, don't discount them, put them in the averages) it's more likely to be mean reversion. The polling has been very stable between 7-9 points for Biden this cycle. It wouldn't surprise me if that reverted back from the 10-11 points we're seeing at the moment.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Penn is closer than Wisconsin.
Not according to RCP. They have it at 5.5% Biden lead in Wisconsin and 7.1% in Pennsylvania. 538 have 7.1% in both.
Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).
I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).
Yeah actually, you and HYUFD are right on that one. I clearly have got my wires crossed.
Doesn't change the fact that Trafalgar being right in 2016 doesn't mean they will be right in 2020.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
NIESR also as pessimistic as my morning update, they also think we've hit the wall of easily recoverable GDP.
This is going to get very bad, the government isn't fit for purpose if they can't run the economy.
I tried to tell you that a V-shaped recovery was VERY unlikely, because a "2nd wave" was coming
It should have been, the government's absolutely rubbish policies are why we are where we are. Italy just posted industrial production of just -0.3% YoY while we're at -7% for the same measure. The difference is that Italy has had a coherent national economic policy and strategy coming out of an outbreak as bad as ours. It should be a wake up call to everyone involved when Italy is an example of good governance and the UK isn't.
The government isn't fit for purpose.
I'm not particularly defending this government, they've made some terrible decisions, but the same can be said for quite a few western governments. As for GDP falls, I reckon they will end up much the same in most of western Europe - i.e. the UK, Spain, Italy, France will also suffer horrifically. We might end up marginally worse, or marginally better. Dunno.
Germany and Sweden will almost definitely do better than the rest.
I think all governments started with a blank slate after May when the infection rate was negligible. We wasted that time and didn't have any kind of strategy to avoid or mitigate a second wave. I'll do a proper lengthy post on it at some point, but it will be an amalgamation of what many of us (including you as well, Sean) have been saying on here for months.
Sean who? Please call me LadyG.
Sadly I agree that much time and effort was wasted. I remember the government saying the entire strategy of the spring was to "avoid a catastrophic second lockdown" which would be "the worst case scenario for the economy" and so on. The scientists repeated this mantra many times, likewise the pols.
Well, here we are. A second lockdown, possibly worse and longer than the first.
The scientists and the politicians have failed.
Okay, I didn't want to have to engage with this silly buggery but this is such a blatant mischaracterisation of the aim of the first lockdown that it really needs challenged. The objective of any lockdown is not to get rid of the virus. It is to reduce it to a level where infection control measures can be effective. That means test, trace and isolate, border restrictions, mask wearing and local restrictions if necessary. Someone described it as "The Hammer and the Dance".
The lockdown succeeded in doing that, but the government relaxed it too early, opened the borders too freely, failed at the "trace and isolate" part of "test, trace and isolate" by having this stupid centralised contact tracing/no income support for isolators and had such mixed messaging that it damaged public compliance with measures. That is the failing here, not the lockdown.
I didn't say the "lockdown" had failed. Please point to the place where I did, in this comment.
I said the politicians and scientists have failed. Which they have. You seem to be arguing with someone else here.
@malcolmg was right, I would be back but I think it's an important one
@kinabalu on the Trump odds, I think he will get more of a pounding in the polls in the next week or so, so I am looking for 5/2 or even 3/1 but I will take 2/1
I mentioned a few days back that one big thing to look out for was the audience numbers for the VP debate and whether they followed the same trends as the Presidential debate, which was down 13% from 2016. My point was that, if the VP trends did significantly better, it would suggests that the public was taking a lot more interest in the VP candidates as potential Presidents and therefore this was not just a Trump vs Biden race but would broaden to a greater focus on Pence and Harris as possible Presidents.
Well, the audience numbers have come in and the uplift from 2016 has been huge - so far, 59m have been counted as watching the VP debate, making it the 2nd most watched VP debate since 1976 and over 50% higher than the 2016 VP debate. It is even more remarkable when you consider that TV audiences have been declining across the board over the past several years and that the Presidential debate this time only generated a 70m audience.
My read on this is that punters are now only going to have to think about what voters are thinking about Trump and Biden, but put an important weighting to voters' views on Pence and Harris. My personal view - which many will disagree with - is that Pence is somewhat of a known entity, the interesting one will be how many undecideds will be comfortable with the prospect of a President Harris.
I agree that more people are paying attention to the VPs this time given the age/health of the 2 main players and that was reflected in higher viewing figures.
Where I disagree is that you seem to be assuming that this all works to the GOP's advantage whereas the only two national polls I've seen on the VP debate both had Harris ahead by some way, hugely so amongst women. Your evidence to the contrary seems to rest on a focus group run by Frank Luntz, a well known professional Republican strategist.
Do you have anything other than "gut feelings" to substantiate the idea that those watching preferred Pence?
There was one poll recently for a theoretical Pence-Harris matchup. It put them level in Florida and Harris up 6 nationwide.
On the face of it that's a lot better than the Trump-Biden polls.
However, at the moment (fingers crossed) Biden doesn't have the virus. Trump does. So the matchup that might count is Pence-Biden. But we don't know if Biden's vote is more an anti-Trump vote than Trump's is a personal pro-Trump vote.
Agreed. I was really talking about the 2 national polls on who won the VP debate. Mr Ed keeps asserting that Pence won it seemingly based on a focus group run by a Republican strategist
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
Grim.
Remember all the claims of 0.1% fatality rates by sceptics?
Are you confusing cases with populations?
No. At 1000 per million dead that couldn't be a 0.1% fatality rate (which was patently bollocks all along) unless 100% of the population was infected already.
Now I am really confused. are you saying the Peru figures were bollocks all along, are you saying the sceptics were predicting 0.1% population or CFR, were they saying as many as 0.1% or as few as 0.1%, are you saying they were right or wrong, what were they sceptical about?
Peru figures are probably an underestimate if anything.
I'm saying the 0.1% CFR claimed by the lockdown sceptics was always patently absurd. The idea this was only a 0.1% fatality was clearly nonsense and Peru proves it, 0.1% of their entire country is dead now and it isn't over there yet.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
This is the fifth time I've found myself nodding in agreement with you this thread and I'm quite enjoying the feeling of actually agreeing with someone across the political divide for once. I think it was Devi Sridhar who said (presciently) that we'd pay for our summer holidays with winter lockdowns. Sad to say I think she was right.
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
My brother lives in Pisac, Peru. He has been keeping me updated on the situation there from the get-go. Peru has had draconian lockdowns, curfews, masks, no bars or cafes, the works. And it has been rigorously enforced.
It has arguably failed. They are past the 2nd wave but with hints of a 3rd?
My brother is one of the smartest people I know (a true autodidact). He is ferociously anti-lockdown and predicted it wouldn't work from the start. He feels vindicated, but bitter
I'm not claiming to agree with him. But I offer that nugget for the attention of PBers.
Its not a case of agreeing, he has given you facts. A draconian lockdown, curfews, masks etc etc did not work.
I have family in Peru. The problem was that the entire country doesn't work online, or remotely. no shopping deliveries, all business of any kind is conducted face to face etc. You quite simply can't live by just staying at home. Then add in poverty and the kind of work many people do....
So the lockdown didn't really isolate anyone from anyone else.
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
My brother lives in Pisac, Peru. He has been keeping me updated on the situation there from the get-go. Peru has had draconian lockdowns, curfews, masks, no bars or cafes, the works. And it has been rigorously enforced.
It has arguably failed. They are past the 2nd wave but with hints of a 3rd?
My brother is one of the smartest people I know (a true autodidact). He is ferociously anti-lockdown and predicted it wouldn't work from the start. He feels vindicated, but bitter
I'm not claiming to agree with him. But I offer that nugget for the attention of PBers.
Very heavy concentration of infection on the coastal fringe in Peru. To remind, seasonal flu is primarily a disease of northern/continental winters PLUS equatorial rainforest climates (i.e. anywhere with a set-your-clock-by afternoon downpour). Guayaquil vs Quito, Amazonas vs rest of Brazil with COVID fits. Far SE Asia did better.
Pandemic is strong enough to get much further into mid latitudes, with slow waves, which is what we've seen in Mexico, India etc. The sweep down the coast then back up the centre of the US, like an orchestra conductor, entirely resembles previous flu pandemics.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
Oxford: 117 cases per 100,000 Cambridge: 41 cases per 100,000 (which is less than the surrounding rural district)
(data from BBC website, for week of 29 Sept - 5 Oct)
Go figure.
Social life at Oxbridge is shit.
Whatever. The point is, why are they so different from *each other*?
(And here's another one to throw into the mix: Bristol 65, Exeter 390!)
Isn't it just random variation? It's the nature of infectious diseases that the spread relies on discrete transmission events and so isn't uniform across different populations. Accounts of the Black Death tell of some villages being wiped out, others more or less unscathed. Clearly there are some systematic factors at work, but much is just blind luck I would have thought. Having said that, on the Oxford vs Cambridge comparison, I would have thought that Oxford being full of twats may be a factor.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
Arizona has, after all, been an economic success over the last four years.
The problem President Trump has is that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennylvania are 44th, 48th and 41st in terms of economic performance over the last four years. (Iowa is 49th, which is why it is also at risk of potentially flipping.)
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that President Trump has followed economic policies that have been great for San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle, which are in states which hate him, rather than policies that benefited the states that got him elected.
What's worse is that he started his term with a promise of a trillion dollar infrastructure spend, much of which was to be focused on the Midwest, only to dump it in favour of tax cuts that were targeted at the ultra wealthy.
Tax cuts for Californians and New Yorkers. That's going to swing the Presidency . . .
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
Oxford: 117 cases per 100,000 Cambridge: 41 cases per 100,000 (which is less than the surrounding rural district)
(data from BBC website, for week of 29 Sept - 5 Oct)
Go figure.
Social life at Oxbridge is shit.
Whatever. The point is, why are they so different from *each other*?
(And here's another one to throw into the mix: Bristol 65, Exeter 390!)
Exeter students are notoriously sociable. Lots of rural poshos who love to drink.
Exeter is the University for the posh but thick.
Yes, a bit like UEA but less arty and more agricultural.
A rather nice place to go to Uni, I reckon: amiable climate by UK standards, lots of lovely countryside, the coast not far away, a pleasant city (albeit scarred by terrible postwar development), plenty of decent pubs (perhaps the main problem here), yet London only ~2 hours away.
Yes we know they got Nevada wrong in 2016 but Nevada was the only state Trafalgar got wrong in terms of the winner in their final 2016 state polls which was a rather better record than most pollsters
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
My brother lives in Pisac, Peru. He has been keeping me updated on the situation there from the get-go. Peru has had draconian lockdowns, curfews, masks, no bars or cafes, the works. And it has been rigorously enforced.
It has arguably failed. They are past the 2nd wave but with hints of a 3rd?
My brother is one of the smartest people I know (a true autodidact). He is ferociously anti-lockdown and predicted it wouldn't work from the start. He feels vindicated, but bitter
I'm not claiming to agree with him. But I offer that nugget for the attention of PBers.
Small world, I recall Eadric, or was it Byronic's brother lived in Peru. Maybe they all know each other.
The three most recent State polls shown on RCP have been decent for Trump - or at least what passes for decent these days: Arizona, Georgia and Texas up 4, 2 & 5 respectively. You can quiblle about their merits but taken at face value they suggest he's still in with a chance. National polls however continue to trend the other way. Silver's 538 Site now has Biden up by 10.2, a new high point.
In 2016 the Nationals were the better guide by a long way. That doesn't mean that will be the case again this time, but it starting to look as though or t'other is going to be the subject of a lot of criticism.
I'm hoping that the divergence is temporary, if only for my nerves. The markets have been static for a while. Seems I'm not the only one to be perplexed.
Arizona has, after all, been an economic success over the last four years.
The problem President Trump has is that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennylvania are 44th, 48th and 41st in terms of economic performance over the last four years. (Iowa is 49th, which is why it is also at risk of potentially flipping.)
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that President Trump has followed economic policies that have been great for San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle, which are in states which hate him, rather than policies that benefited the states that got him elected.
What's worse is that he started his term with a promise of a trillion dollar infrastructure spend, much of which was to be focused on the Midwest, only to dump it in favour of tax cuts that were targeted at the ultra wealthy.
On the other hand, much of the growth in AZ is from younger people with a more Dem mindset moving from CA. The jobs are not going to Trumpite ranchers, but to younger incomers.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
The three most recent State polls shown on RCP have been decent for Trump - or at least what passes for decent these days: Arizona, Georgia and Texas up 4, 2 & 5 respectively. You can quiblle about their merits but taken at face value they suggest he's still in with a chance. National polls however continue to trend the other way. Silver's 538 Site now has Biden up by 10.2, a new high point.
In 2016 the Nationals were the better guide by a long way. That doesn't mean that will be the case again this time, but it starting to look as though or t'other is going to be the subject of a lot of criticism.
I'm hoping that the divergence is temporary, if only for my nerves. The markets have been static for a while. Seems I'm not the only one to be perplexed.
Yes the Nationals were the better guide in 2016 and Hilary did indeed win the popular vote nationally, just a pity then US elections are determined by the states in the Electoral College which was why Trump won
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
Oxford: 117 cases per 100,000 Cambridge: 41 cases per 100,000 (which is less than the surrounding rural district)
(data from BBC website, for week of 29 Sept - 5 Oct)
Go figure.
Social life at Oxbridge is shit.
Whatever. The point is, why are they so different from *each other*?
(And here's another one to throw into the mix: Bristol 65, Exeter 390!)
Exeter students are notoriously sociable. Lots of rural poshos who love to drink.
Exeter is the University for the posh but thick.
Seems a bit of an outdated view. Exeter is regularly ranked a top 15 uni. Bristol is worse for poshos who weren't good enough to get into a top 5-10 uni.
I would think it not impossible now we could see a popular vote result something like Biden 51% Trump 47% and yet Trump still narrowly wins the EC in the House after a 269-269 result because Biden only picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE02 while Trump holds all his other 2016 states. The election is now effectively all down to Wisconsin at the moment the polls show Biden still ahead there but then again the Wisconsin polls were all wrong in 2016
Also not impossible is that the weighted average national polls are right and the state polls which are out of line with this are wrong. I favour this view. It means Biden will win the PV by 10 points and the EC by 150.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
Oxford: 117 cases per 100,000 Cambridge: 41 cases per 100,000 (which is less than the surrounding rural district)
(data from BBC website, for week of 29 Sept - 5 Oct)
Go figure.
Social life at Oxbridge is shit.
Whatever. The point is, why are they so different from *each other*?
(And here's another one to throw into the mix: Bristol 65, Exeter 390!)
Exeter students are notoriously sociable. Lots of rural poshos who love to drink.
Exeter is the University for the posh but thick.
Seems a bit of an outdated view. Exeter is regularly ranked a top 15 uni. Bristol is worse for poshos who weren't good enough to get into a top 5-10 uni.
To be serious, I imagine that the proportion of foreign students must be a factor.
If you have a large intake of Chinese, Indian, and Muslim students, they will tend to be less boozy, promiscuous and blatantly sociable than native Brits, thereby dampening any spread.
And on that controversial note, I am heading for the gym. Anon.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
That is a signal from Pelosi - “don’t release any good news about the Oxford vaccine before the election. Otherwise we will take it as helping Trump, with an October surprise”
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
Oxford: 117 cases per 100,000 Cambridge: 41 cases per 100,000 (which is less than the surrounding rural district)
(data from BBC website, for week of 29 Sept - 5 Oct)
Go figure.
Social life at Oxbridge is shit.
Whatever. The point is, why are they so different from *each other*?
(And here's another one to throw into the mix: Bristol 65, Exeter 390!)
Exeter students are notoriously sociable. Lots of rural poshos who love to drink.
Exeter is the University for the posh but thick.
Is that so? I always wondered how our Head Boy got in.
The differential between universities is probably just down to luck. Hugh Pennington was pointing out earlier that 10% of super-spreaders cause 80% of cases.
Throw a handful of these characters into freshers week and you have the whole campus down with it within a couple of weeks.
That is a signal from Pelosi - “don’t release any good news about the Oxford vaccine before the election. Otherwise we will take it as helping Trump, with an October surprise”
Yes. I can't believe believe Trump isn't offering the PharmaCos the world on a stick in his second term, in exchange for some good news now.
The 538 polling average gives Biden a lead of 10.2pts.
That's the highest it has ever been.
They have Biden 52% Trump 42%, where are the missing 6%? Not all 3rd party, I would suggest many if not most of them are shy Trump voters
We may have to agree to differ on this one, Hyufd, but I've popped the Shy-Trumper theory in the bin. This is down to my reading of a review on the subject by one of the main polling companies (sorry, forget which but think it was Monmouth) and the Kennedy report into the polling 'failure' in 2016. They did identify the phenomenon and where it was most likely to be found but the amount was negligible when netted off against its mirror image, shy anti-Trump voters.
The biggest mistake was not having quarantine for everyone who left the country over the summer.
There should've been no foreign travel for anything except essential purposes. Allowing huge numbers of people to go on their Summer holidays was a huge and unnecessary gamble.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once.
Oxford: 117 cases per 100,000 Cambridge: 41 cases per 100,000 (which is less than the surrounding rural district)
(data from BBC website, for week of 29 Sept - 5 Oct)
Go figure.
Social life at Oxbridge is shit.
Whatever. The point is, why are they so different from *each other*?
(And here's another one to throw into the mix: Bristol 65, Exeter 390!)
Exeter students are notoriously sociable. Lots of rural poshos who love to drink.
Exeter is the University for the posh but thick.
Is that so? I always wondered how our Head Boy got in.
The differential between universities is probably just down to luck. Hugh Pennington was pointing out earlier that 10% of super-spreaders cause 80% of cases.
Throw a handful of these characters into freshers week and you have the whole campus down with it within a couple of weeks.
I think some unis are doing more than others to try and mitigate spread.
We have had stories about how some unis are even charging the kids for basics like food packages and doing laundry, and not putting on any sensible social events. Which leads to people to ignore symptoms and and plan hall parties.
In comparison, i know of others that are providing guaranteed free meals, laundry, exercise plans to those isolating and also putting on outdoor (in marquees) social event spaces.
Yes and completely unnecessary unless she thinks Trump might win! The anti-British thing is really bizarre. Is she determined to confirm that there is more than one nutter on Capitol Hill!
That is a signal from Pelosi - “don’t release any good news about the Oxford vaccine before the election. Otherwise we will take it as helping Trump, with an October surprise”
Yes. I can't believe believe Trump isn't offering the PharmaCos the world on a stick in his second term, in exchange for some good news now.
If he announced some, do you think anyone would believe him? Lying is possibly the one area where the White House has set new standards.
5,300 cases today, twice as many as Germany. Belgium has a total population of 11m.
Also today, Peru hits 1,000 per m dead on worldometer - first proper country to get there.
My brother lives in Pisac, Peru. He has been keeping me updated on the situation there from the get-go. Peru has had draconian lockdowns, curfews, masks, no bars or cafes, the works. And it has been rigorously enforced.
It has arguably failed. They are past the 2nd wave but with hints of a 3rd?
My brother is one of the smartest people I know (a true autodidact). He is ferociously anti-lockdown and predicted it wouldn't work from the start. He feels vindicated, but bitter
I'm not claiming to agree with him. But I offer that nugget for the attention of PBers.
Small world, I recall Eadric, or was it Byronic's brother lived in Peru. Maybe they all know each other.
If Freshers Flu (Covid Edition) burns through the student community without spreading into the wider community enough to go beyond flat then that would be great.
Comments
Taking a more sensible approach - looking at a range of recent polls for each state - Texas and Iowa remain pretty likely to be carried by Trump (though either could be uncomfortably close for him); North Carolina, Florida and Arizona look close (leaning slightly to Biden but could easily flip if his national lead softens); and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan look as if they need quite a substantial move in the national picture to be very competitive.
Norway's looking very good in comparison, as is Finland. But, like Sweden, hard to scale up from there.
I'm saying the 0.1% CFR claimed by the lockdown sceptics was always patently absurd. The idea this was only a 0.1% fatality was clearly nonsense and Peru proves it, 0.1% of their entire country is dead now and it isn't over there yet.
Sean who? Please call me LadyG.
Sadly I agree that much time and effort was wasted. I remember the government saying the entire strategy of the spring was to "avoid a catastrophic second lockdown" which would be "the worst case scenario for the economy" and so on. The scientists repeated this mantra many times, likewise the pols.
Well, here we are. A second lockdown, possibly worse and longer than the first.
The scientists and the politicians have failed.
Oxford: 117 cases per 100,000
Cambridge: 41 cases per 100,000 (which is less than the surrounding rural district)
(data from BBC website, for week of 29 Sept - 5 Oct)
Go figure.
"The true infection fatality rate is definitely lower than one in a thousand and probably closer to one in ten thousand."
Given herd immunity, that would mean that herd immunity HAD to be reached by the time a given city, country, or state had lost 0.067% of its population and probably by the time it had lost 0.0067%.
So, say, for London, probably by the time 595 people had died and certainly by the time 5,950 had died.
(Spoiler: it's already above the latter number with no sign of herd immunity yet).
So Peru should have maxed out at about a fifteenth of it's current death toll, and definitely by two thirds. Either literally everyone's been infected and it's all gone away, or people are getting it repeatedly.
Or, more plausibly, that the estimate of 0.01% to 0.1% IFR was total mince.
Pennsylvania is more likely to be pivotal in the sense it's a bigger state (so there are a lot of paths to victory including Pennsylvania).
I understand HYUFD's point, though, is that he thinks Wisconsin is Trump's best bet at a hold from that, Pennsylvania and Michigan and if (big if) everything else stays as it was in 2016 that is enough for Trump (Biden would fall two EVs short of a win, and one of a tie, on 268).
Arizona has, after all, been an economic success over the last four years.
The problem President Trump has is that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennylvania are 44th, 48th and 41st in terms of economic performance over the last four years. (Iowa is 49th, which is why it is also at risk of potentially flipping.)
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that President Trump has followed economic policies that have been great for San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle, which are in states which hate him, rather than policies that benefited the states that got him elected.
What's worse is that he started his term with a promise of a trillion dollar infrastructure spend, much of which was to be focused on the Midwest, only to dump it in favour of tax cuts that were targeted at the ultra wealthy.
The lockdown succeeded in doing that, but the government relaxed it too early, opened the borders too freely, failed at the "trace and isolate" part of "test, trace and isolate" by having this stupid centralised contact tracing/no income support for isolators and had such mixed messaging that it damaged public compliance with measures. That is the failing here, not the lockdown.
Doesn't change the fact that Trafalgar being right in 2016 doesn't mean they will be right in 2020.
Britain can't cut itself off like New Zealand because of its reliance for vital imports and exports on truckers, but we'd arguably have been much better off in a variety of ways if we'd just told people to do without their ten nights flopping about on a Mediterranean beach just this once. Whatever. The point is, why are they so different from *each other*?
(And here's another one to throw into the mix: Bristol 65, Exeter 390!)
I said the politicians and scientists have failed. Which they have. You seem to be arguing with someone else here.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1314591877765660675?s=20
So the lockdown didn't really isolate anyone from anyone else.
Pandemic is strong enough to get much further into mid latitudes, with slow waves, which is what we've seen in Mexico, India etc. The sweep down the coast then back up the centre of the US, like an orchestra conductor, entirely resembles previous flu pandemics.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1314590708712513537?s=20
Having said that, on the Oxford vs Cambridge comparison, I would have thought that Oxford being full of twats may be a factor.
That's the highest it has ever been.
https://twitter.com/trafalgar_group/status/795105228685185024
I always wondered how our Head Boy got in.
A rather nice place to go to Uni, I reckon: amiable climate by UK standards, lots of lovely countryside, the coast not far away, a pleasant city (albeit scarred by terrible postwar development), plenty of decent pubs (perhaps the main problem here), yet London only ~2 hours away.
In 2016 the Nationals were the better guide by a long way. That doesn't mean that will be the case again this time, but it starting to look as though or t'other is going to be the subject of a lot of criticism.
I'm hoping that the divergence is temporary, if only for my nerves. The markets have been static for a while. Seems I'm not the only one to be perplexed.
Does Johnson have any role in approving drugs?
Dithering idiots.
If you have a large intake of Chinese, Indian, and Muslim students, they will tend to be less boozy, promiscuous and blatantly sociable than native Brits, thereby dampening any spread.
And on that controversial note, I am heading for the gym. Anon.
Local council have been imploring people not to make this a Big Final Piss Up weekend when they have last catch up with family and friends.
We'll see how that works out shall we....
Throw a handful of these characters into freshers week and you have the whole campus down with it within a couple of weeks.
We have had stories about how some unis are even charging the kids for basics like food packages and doing laundry, and not putting on any sensible social events. Which leads to people to ignore symptoms and and plan hall parties.
In comparison, i know of others that are providing guaranteed free meals, laundry, exercise plans to those isolating and also putting on outdoor (in marquees) social event spaces.
It is quite interesting how crap the information that politicians make decisions is, at times.
That goes for every pol in every country I have come across... read the biographies and they make decisions based on what they saw on CNN
Bit like business leaders and Forbes really
BBC News - Travel writer Simon Calder has 'no further plans' to visit Wales after abuse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54476576
If Freshers Flu (Covid Edition) burns through the student community without spreading into the wider community enough to go beyond flat then that would be great.