Trump does not even necessarily need to come from behind now, according to some state polls from key swing states in the last few days he is ahead in enough swing states for a narrow re election, even if he is likely to lose the national popular vote again.
People should know this about Trafalgar's history - Robert Cahaly is the face of the company on twitter. https://www.wistv.com/story/13429729/gop-consultant-to-face-sled-arrest-for-illegal-robocalls/ 41-year-old Robert Cahaly faces charges that he purchased, then disseminated computer-generated calls from an automatically dialed announcing service to potential South Carolina voters on September 23.
According to SLED, the calls were political in nature and were allegedly made without properly disclosing the identity of the originating party to the call recipients, which is in violation of SC Code 16-17-446.
We previously reported that the Ken Ard's campaign manager was accused of robocalling and that there was a warrant issued for his arrest. In fact, the campaign manager is not accused of robocalling and is not in trouble with the law.
SLED has determined that the calls were made through a Richland County landline telephone number owned by Gadsden and Greene Strategies, a company owned by Cahaly.
The calls, according to SLED, were allegedly made to numerous voters in House Districts 26 (Greenville and Pickens), 78 (Richland County), 79 (Kershaw and Richland Counties), 98 (Dorchester County), 108 (Charleston and Georgetown Counties) and 115 (James Island and Folly Beach).
Who cares? They forecast Trump would win Michigan and Florida right in 2016 and that is all that matters
I think you have stated your philosophy rather nicely there, and it is clear why you do not bet. If you ever start betting, please let me know.
Meanwhile you can hardly contain your excitement that your orange turdbucket might just scrape home for four more years of glorious One Nation Conservatism.
After that Trafalgar poll I have made a small bet actually at 6/1 that Trump to get 270 to 299 EC votes, I don't bet often but do occasionally if good value
You could have got 9/1 on betfair!
No, it is 6/1 now, it was on betfair, money has been going on Trump tonight in the EC after that Trafalgar Michigan poll
So we'll find 1000s and 1000s more false positives and need a massive new year lockdown.
Ah yes - those false positives. Along with the false sicknesses and false deaths.
Indeed. Of all the theories that don't hold water the false positive one is definitely it. If it was true we'd be seeing no appreciable rise in the hospitalisation or death rate and since both have followed new cases upwards it's logical to say the cases are real positives, not false positives.
The tragedy is that those presenting the false positive theory are not persuadable on this point. Some (hopefully not on here) are just trolling, of course, but many otherwise-smart people have become trapped in the cognitive dissonance that *requires* them to believe debunked theories: it's just the flu; it's harmless to young people; misreading lagged data to see a decline when there is none; widespread T-cell immunity means that herd immunity is just around the corner; false positives; those dying would have died shortly anyway; ... I wonder what's next.
I'm genuinely sorrowful for those so trapped. It actually makes me wonder whether I'm similarly trapped and don't realize it: a scary thought.
I suspect the US polls are pretty accurate. But we have to consider how effective the attempts at voter suppression will be. It's a lot easier to tell a pollster you'll vote for Biden that it actually is to do so in some places.
Number of years ago (before the collapse of the Red Wall) there was incident in North of England where a Conservative candidate in a local election received ZERO votes.
Journos asked, didn't even the people who signed her election petition vote for her?
Turned out that Tories had sent a young operative out into the Labour heartland to get nomination papers signed for the Tory hopeful (who IIRC did not live in the area) and after much canvassing had come up with diddly squat.
Until he ran into a kindly bloke, a Labour supporter who took pitty on the lad's plight, and offered to sign the paper for him, and helped russle up a bunch of his friends to make up the remaining required signatures (think it was ten).
WITH the understanding that NONE of these folks was gonna vote for the Conservative candidate. And they did not.
Parties normally rely upon their local members to provide the necessary signatures for a nomination. This is often quite straightforward, although in a small branch if you are relying on a specific group of people to sign the form, it can be surprising how many times you have to call round to find them all in.
The problem arises where a party is weak, has very few members and/or there is no local organisation. It looks as if this was the case for the Tories in some parts of Hackney. In extremis you just have to call door to door and ask voters whether they agree there should be a candidate from your party, and if so would they be willing to nominate your candidate whilst being under no obligation to vote for them. Eventually you’ll get ten signatures, but it can be a thankless task. It looks like this enterprising Tory came up with some imaginative wheezes to persuade people to sign, which isn’t on.
Consider also that during an election a Borough agent may have several moribund wards where finding the signatures is a challenge, and will also have a shedload of more useful stuff they will be eager to get back and do.
Just in case anyone wants the Excel formula to calculate the R value from the dashboard CSV download, column E is the daily case rate by specimen date:
Just copy the whole thing into any cell to the right of E2 in the download. I also did a bit of reading and it seems the incubation time is actually 5 days and the number of days infectious during that is 3.5 days which is hardcoded into the formula.
I think I'll write a script and UDF on monday to automate daily calculation, but I'll need to find the time.
You didn't use INDIRECT or nested IFs, so I'm afraid I can't take your Excel skills seriously
No real need for an INDIRECT and I despise nested IFs, I'd rather just write a CASE statement in SQL. Tbh, I feel dirty using Excel.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
Very belatedly, but I pity poor John Titmuss. Who's he? The guy who, by some distance, came dead last of 119 candidates in the Guernsey General Election, where 119 candidates competed for 38 seats in a single constituency. It must be tough knowing you are the least popular of every other person who stood.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
--AS
My hedge fund friends were on this very early: their view was that if there were 3 or 4 viable vaccines, then the most manufacturable would end up with an 80% share.
And Pfizer has managed the trials much better than AZN or Moderna - they've gone to places with rampant CV19 and got 10s of thousands of people signed up. It's amazing to think that Moderna and AZN had a multiple month headstart, but Pfizer may beat them to market.
Just in case anyone wants the Excel formula to calculate the R value from the dashboard CSV download, column E is the daily case rate by specimen date:
Just copy the whole thing into any cell to the right of E2 in the download. I also did a bit of reading and it seems the incubation time is actually 5 days and the number of days infectious during that is 3.5 days which is hardcoded into the formula.
I think I'll write a script and UDF on monday to automate daily calculation, but I'll need to find the time.
Is this right, in your opinion?
If so, might add that to my system, if that's OK with you... daily R per LLTA, anyone?
It’s a small trial, but it bears out the expectation that the less accurate test will miss mainly those who are infected but not infectious. And the slightly lower accuracy is massively outweighed by the speed and low cost, which makes performing many more tests feasible, along with isolating the infected much earlier.
Just in case anyone wants the Excel formula to calculate the R value from the dashboard CSV download, column E is the daily case rate by specimen date:
Just copy the whole thing into any cell to the right of E2 in the download. I also did a bit of reading and it seems the incubation time is actually 5 days and the number of days infectious during that is 3.5 days which is hardcoded into the formula.
I think I'll write a script and UDF on monday to automate daily calculation, but I'll need to find the time.
Is this right, in your opinion?
If so, might add that to my system, if that's OK with you... daily R per LLTA, anyone?
Yes, it's the same as what I've plotted. More than happy for you to add it to the daily update. Even just by how it "feels" the number tracks well with school starting and university starting so it passes my sniff test.
Might be worth making the last 4 plots a dotted line though.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
--AS
My hedge fund friends were on this very early: their view was that if there were 3 or 4 viable vaccines, then the most manufacturable would end up with an 80% share.
And Pfizer has managed the trials much better than AZN or Moderna - they've gone to places with rampant CV19 and got 10s of thousands of people signed up. It's amazing to think that Moderna and AZN had a multiple month headstart, but Pfizer may beat them to market.
Absolutely. It's surprising that Pfizer hasn't seen much gain in its share price, but perhaps it doesn't expect to make much profit from this pandemic, manufacturing at risk and selling at cost. But pharma stocks are a bit of a mystery to me.
AZN should really have been first out of the gate, but they weren't too quick at setting up the phase 2/3 trials and have been enrolling at a disappointingly slow rate, pauses notwithstanding. I've always been a bit skeptical about Moderna, but we'll see.
The UK feels very fractious at the moment. Let's hope for some good news soon to calm it down a little.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
--AS
My hedge fund friends were on this very early: their view was that if there were 3 or 4 viable vaccines, then the most manufacturable would end up with an 80% share.
And Pfizer has managed the trials much better than AZN or Moderna - they've gone to places with rampant CV19 and got 10s of thousands of people signed up. It's amazing to think that Moderna and AZN had a multiple month headstart, but Pfizer may beat them to market.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
A 15 minute screening for infectious people is a game changer isn’t it? It’s more important to find infectious plague carriers than simply plague carriers, right?
Re: Trafalgar, note that Robert Cahaly is connected with something called ACE TOMATO
According to report Oct 1 by Daily Beast, Ace Tomato and Cahaly were involved in $1.4m internet ad buy for "Our American Century" on behalf of Trumpsky.
I'm a little underwhelmed by the study quoted. Of course, a huge difficulty with these trials is how to determine the ground truth. I haven't checked how SAGE think that they are measuring sensitivity of various tests, since PCR is not itself a ground truth for infectiousness. (This is not an admission of the False Positive Hypothesis!)
It’s a small trial, but it bears out the expectation that the less accurate test will miss mainly those who are infected but not infectious. And the slightly lower accuracy is massively outweighed by the speed and low cost, which makes performing many more tests feasible, along with isolating the infected much earlier.
The question is also - what is the source of the inaccuracies? Is it something that randomly happens - so will repeats improve accuracy? Will multiple parallel tests be more accurate? i.e. take the test 3 times, wait 15 min and compare all three results?
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
Yes, thanks. I used to teach sequential hypothesis tests and a little about stopping rules, albeit quite a while ago, so this sort of thing was in my mind about the the vaccine needing to be either very effective (or fairly effective and very lucky) to get to stop at the first readout. Especially since the Pfizer readouts are so aggressive.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
Just in case anyone wants the Excel formula to calculate the R value from the dashboard CSV download, column E is the daily case rate by specimen date:
Just copy the whole thing into any cell to the right of E2 in the download. I also did a bit of reading and it seems the incubation time is actually 5 days and the number of days infectious during that is 3.5 days which is hardcoded into the formula.
I think I'll write a script and UDF on monday to automate daily calculation, but I'll need to find the time.
And how many people on this forum were criticising the UK government for using Excel? This type of formula should be nowhere near a spreadsheet. It would be like Foxy treating his patients with a 19C book on phrenology or Dura Ace driving a Trabant.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Just in case anyone wants the Excel formula to calculate the R value from the dashboard CSV download, column E is the daily case rate by specimen date:
Just copy the whole thing into any cell to the right of E2 in the download. I also did a bit of reading and it seems the incubation time is actually 5 days and the number of days infectious during that is 3.5 days which is hardcoded into the formula.
I think I'll write a script and UDF on monday to automate daily calculation, but I'll need to find the time.
And how many people on this forum were criticising the UK government for using Excel? This type of formula should be nowhere near a spreadsheet. It would be like Foxy treating his patients with a 19C book on phrenology or Dura Ace driving a Trabant.
Meh, using excel to make a graph for a bunch of stats nerds is one thing...
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
One thing to note is that if my R calculation is correct (and it should be) then our second wave hasn't seen the R go above 2 while the R was above 4 based on the positive test data (probably even higher given there were so many positives we didn't know about). This second wave is nothing like the first one.
Another thing to see is that when the R fell below 1 after lockdown it was only ever in the 0.8-1.0 range. That's why this circuit breaker will fail, the measures we put in place weren't tough enough during the main lockdown to get the R down to 0.5 or 0.4 which China and other Asian countries managed and the circuit breaker is not even going to be as tough as the first one so the R won't fall far enough anyway.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
--AS
My hedge fund friends were on this very early: their view was that if there were 3 or 4 viable vaccines, then the most manufacturable would end up with an 80% share.
And Pfizer has managed the trials much better than AZN or Moderna - they've gone to places with rampant CV19 and got 10s of thousands of people signed up. It's amazing to think that Moderna and AZN had a multiple month headstart, but Pfizer may beat them to market.
Absolutely. It's surprising that Pfizer hasn't seen much gain in its share price, but perhaps it doesn't expect to make much profit from this pandemic, manufacturing at risk and selling at cost. But pharma stocks are a bit of a mystery to me.
AZN should really have been first out of the gate, but they weren't too quick at setting up the phase 2/3 trials and have been enrolling at a disappointingly slow rate, pauses notwithstanding. I've always been a bit skeptical about Moderna, but we'll see.
The UK feels very fractious at the moment. Let's hope for some good news soon to calm it down a little.
--AS
Pfizer is a HUGE company, though, and it only shares the profits with BioNTech
It’s a small trial, but it bears out the expectation that the less accurate test will miss mainly those who are infected but not infectious. And the slightly lower accuracy is massively outweighed by the speed and low cost, which makes performing many more tests feasible, along with isolating the infected much earlier.
The question is also - what is the source of the inaccuracies? Is it something that randomly happens - so will repeats improve accuracy? Will multiple parallel tests be more accurate? i.e. take the test 3 times, wait 15 min and compare all three results?
Well it suggests (and it’s a very small trial) that the rapid tests aren’t sensitive enough to pick up those with low viral loads - who are also less likely to be infectious. As @AlwaysSinging points out, though, there are uncertainties involved in all of this.
What’s pretty certain, though, is if you test a lot more people, and get results immediately instead of a day or two later, even a less accurate test than this, which misses even more of the infected, would let you isolate a larger proportion of infected people while they are infectious. Which is the name of the game.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Wasn't it discovered about 20 years ago that using hands-free phones were almost as distracting and dangerous as handling them? I thought so.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
I couldn’t care less about a bonking story.
Does anyone actually give a shit about this sort of stuff?
Given it seems Islamic terrorists have beheaded a teacher in Paris for showing their class cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed probably needed more than ever
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
Just in case anyone wants the Excel formula to calculate the R value from the dashboard CSV download, column E is the daily case rate by specimen date:
Just copy the whole thing into any cell to the right of E2 in the download. I also did a bit of reading and it seems the incubation time is actually 5 days and the number of days infectious during that is 3.5 days which is hardcoded into the formula.
I think I'll write a script and UDF on monday to automate daily calculation, but I'll need to find the time.
And how many people on this forum were criticising the UK government for using Excel? This type of formula should be nowhere near a spreadsheet. It would be like Foxy treating his patients with a 19C book on phrenology or Dura Ace driving a Trabant.
I'd have done it in SQL, but tbh, there's nothing in there that's particularly taxing. A couple of natural logs, a couple of logs and some SUMs. It looks worse than it is because it's working out this formula - R0 = 1 + rTS + fr(1-fr)(rTS)^2 without the need for additional work.
One thing to note is that if my R calculation is correct (and it should be) then our second wave hasn't seen the R go above 2 while the R was above 4 based on the positive test data (probably even higher given there were so many positives we didn't know about). This second wave is nothing like the first one.
Another thing to see is that when the R fell below 1 after lockdown it was only ever in the 0.8-1.0 range. That's why this circuit breaker will fail, the measures we put in place weren't tough enough during the main lockdown to get the R down to 0.5 or 0.4 which China and other Asian countries managed and the circuit breaker is not even going to be as tough as the first one so the R won't fall far enough anyway.
Concerning that R was never far below 1 as it implies that the Tier system won't work. I was getting optimistic from the testing data and with the students surely seeing the spread slow soon that we might see R below 1 with just the Tiers but I'm guessing you're saying it won't?
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
Yes, thanks. I used to teach sequential hypothesis tests and a little about stopping rules, albeit quite a while ago, so this sort of thing was in my mind about the the vaccine needing to be either very effective (or fairly effective and very lucky) to get to stop at the first readout. Especially since the Pfizer readouts are so aggressive.
--AS
The conclusion seems to be just that, that it would have to be very effective to be stopped so early, but that the true effectiveness would likely be slightly less than that data indicated.
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month - we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November - manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
This is all pretty much as expected, I believe. (Of course I'll believe the efficacy data only after it's unblinded!)
--AS
It is worth noting that this vaccine (if it works) is extremely manufacturable: Pfizer could easily be churning out 100m doses a month from early next year.
Yes, I've been bullish on the Pfizer vaccine since the surprisingly good phase 1/2 trial. Here's hoping that it's so effective that it can be licensed based on the first readout (though that's actually quite a high bar).
--AS
My hedge fund friends were on this very early: their view was that if there were 3 or 4 viable vaccines, then the most manufacturable would end up with an 80% share.
And Pfizer has managed the trials much better than AZN or Moderna - they've gone to places with rampant CV19 and got 10s of thousands of people signed up. It's amazing to think that Moderna and AZN had a multiple month headstart, but Pfizer may beat them to market.
Absolutely. It's surprising that Pfizer hasn't seen much gain in its share price, but perhaps it doesn't expect to make much profit from this pandemic, manufacturing at risk and selling at cost. But pharma stocks are a bit of a mystery to me.
AZN should really have been first out of the gate, but they weren't too quick at setting up the phase 2/3 trials and have been enrolling at a disappointingly slow rate, pauses notwithstanding. I've always been a bit skeptical about Moderna, but we'll see.
The UK feels very fractious at the moment. Let's hope for some good news soon to calm it down a little.
--AS
Pfizer is a HUGE company, though, and it only shares the profits with BioNTech
Pfizer has also extended their trials to kids aged 13+.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
I couldn’t care less about a bonking story.
Does anyone actually give a shit about this sort of stuff?
Oh, it provides some amusement, amongst the graft.
One thing to note is that if my R calculation is correct (and it should be) then our second wave hasn't seen the R go above 2 while the R was above 4 based on the positive test data (probably even higher given there were so many positives we didn't know about). This second wave is nothing like the first one.
Another thing to see is that when the R fell below 1 after lockdown it was only ever in the 0.8-1.0 range. That's why this circuit breaker will fail, the measures we put in place weren't tough enough during the main lockdown to get the R down to 0.5 or 0.4 which China and other Asian countries managed and the circuit breaker is not even going to be as tough as the first one so the R won't fall far enough anyway.
Concerning that R was never far below 1 as it implies that the Tier system won't work. I was getting optimistic from the testing data and with the students surely seeing the spread slow soon that we might see R below 1 with just the Tiers but I'm guessing you're saying it won't?
I think it will fall below 1 but not by very much, it's a very slow road to numbers below 2k cases per day like the summer. Even with the circuit breaker it's just as slow IMO.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
Get the Mail delivered to your home for free? That won't help with the mental health crisis.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
That Jennifer Arcuri had affair with Boris? Yes it's very shocking. I would never have even considered that could have ever happened.
In other news, did you know that Pope Francis practises Catholicism?
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Wasn't it discovered about 20 years ago that using hands-free phones were almost as distracting and dangerous as handling them? I thought so.
They are safer, but not as safe as concentrating on driving without a phone at all! One major improvement to safety would be getting rid of manual gearboxes - a pointless distraction given that in good modern cars automatics are more efficient than manuals in real-world driving.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
I couldn’t care less about a bonking story.
Does anyone actually give a shit about this sort of stuff?
Oh, it provides some amusement, amongst the graft.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Wasn't it discovered about 20 years ago that using hands-free phones were almost as distracting and dangerous as handling them? I thought so.
They are safer, but not as safe as concentrating on driving without a phone at all! One major improvement to safety would be getting rid of manual gearboxes - a pointless distraction given that in good modern cars automatics are more efficient than manuals in real-world driving.
On the contrary. Having a manual gearbox contributes to keeping me alert on long solo drives.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
I couldn’t care less about a bonking story.
Does anyone actually give a shit about this sort of stuff?
Oh, it provides some amusement, amongst the graft.
So did she obtain any govt contracts while BoJo was Mayor OR after he became Prime Minister.
THAT might be something that voters might just care about.
Now Jeremy Corbyn breaks rules at memorial: Former Labour leader was at 'anarchists' carnival' with 100 others a week after he apologised for dining with eight friends
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
That Jennifer Arcuri had affair with Boris? Yes it's very shocking. I would never have even considered that could have ever happened.
In other news, did you know that Pope Francis practises Catholicism?
Are you sure he's still practicing? I would have though he'd have it down pat, and be able to do it for real now.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Wasn't it discovered about 20 years ago that using hands-free phones were almost as distracting and dangerous as handling them? I thought so.
They are safer, but not as safe as concentrating on driving without a phone at all! One major improvement to safety would be getting rid of manual gearboxes - a pointless distraction given that in good modern cars automatics are more efficient than manuals in real-world driving.
Is there any evidence of this? When I google it up I get a lot of the opposite claim: That the need to constantly fidget with the car based on road conditions stops you dozing off or fiddling with your phone. But it all seems like speculation, with no actual data.
Maybe one for @rcs1000, if it's not a trade secret?
Which one suspects was yet another one of Bob Barr's very special projects aimed (methinks) at persuading Trumpsky to grant him one of the MANY pardons likely to be announced between November 3 and January 21.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Wasn't it discovered about 20 years ago that using hands-free phones were almost as distracting and dangerous as handling them? I thought so.
They are safer, but not as safe as concentrating on driving without a phone at all! One major improvement to safety would be getting rid of manual gearboxes - a pointless distraction given that in good modern cars automatics are more efficient than manuals in real-world driving.
On the contrary. Having a manual gearbox contributes to keeping me alert on long solo drives.
Imagine how safe you'd be if you had an Austin 7 with manual ignition advance.
4. Cheating! Voter suppression, gerrymandering, fraud and intimidation can make a nonsense of any poll.
As a fellow Biden punter I think only 4. really bothers me because it's unquantifiable, but my democratic instincts lead me to think the impact won't be that great.
I certainly hope so.
Democratic instincts aside,
1) Voter suppression should be less bad than 2016. There are Dem governors and secretaries of state in lots of swing states, and there's been a lot of attention on the issue and a lot of improvements - and there's widespread postal voting, which avoids most of the suppression strategies.
2) There haven't been any Electoral College-related gerrymanders since 2016. No states have been added, removed or redrawn, and any census-related shenanigans won't be relevant until next time
3) Intimidation could happen but again postal voting helps, and there have been no signs of it reported so far.
So the only question is whether there's fraud; We've seen Trump complain about postal voting fraud a lot, which generally would be a sign that he's committing postal voting fraud, but there's no evidence of this to date and his crimes don't generally seem to be wildly subtle.
4. Cheating! Voter suppression, gerrymandering, fraud and intimidation can make a nonsense of any poll.
As a fellow Biden punter I think only 4. really bothers me because it's unquantifiable, but my democratic instincts lead me to think the impact won't be that great.
I certainly hope so.
Democratic instincts aside,
1) Voter suppression should be less bad than 2016. There are Dem governors and secretaries of state in lots of swing states, and there's been a lot of attention on the issue and a lot of improvements - and there's widespread postal voting, which avoids most of the suppression strategies.
2) There haven't been any Electoral College-related gerrymanders since 2016. No states have been added, removed or redrawn, and any census-related shenanigans won't be relevant until next time
3) Intimidation could happen but again postal voting helps, and there have been no signs of it reported so far.
So the only question is whether there's fraud; We've seen Trump complain about postal voting fraud a lot, which generally would be a sign that he's committing postal voting fraud, but there's no evidence of this to date and his crimes don't generally seem to be wildly subtle.
Perhaps you didn't hear about the postal ballot fraud by Republican operatives in North Carolina congressional race in 201*?
OR catch the stories about the ballot harvest fraud planned by GOP for THIS election:
Actually expect re-election of Doug Jones to coincide with 2nd Coming. However, RNC may well be forced to divert precious resources into what by rights should be a totally safe seat in a totally safe state.
BTW, did any PBers notice that Coach Nick Saban of University of Alabama contracted COVID? Which is WAY bigger news in AL than when Trumpsky got it (if indeed he did).
Wonder IF this poll indicates some backlash from 'Bama fans against Coach Tuberville of UA's hated intra-state rival, Auburn University?
Though in runoff primary my theory that 'Bama fans would reject Tuberville in favor of Jeff Sessions proved to be NOT so hot as a betting proposition!
And how many people on this forum were criticising the UK government for using Excel? This type of formula should be nowhere near a spreadsheet. It would be like Foxy treating his patients with a 19C book on phrenology or Dura Ace driving a Trabant.
I have driven a Trabbi. It has a three position fuel cutoff valve on the dashboard that was mysteriously labelled R, Z and A. You also can't coast in gears first through third as it will destroy the engine through lack of lubrication (two stroke with no oil injection and freewheel device only on 4th) so you're on the throttle or on the brakes 100% of the time in 1-3. Not exactly a relaxing driving experience. Hence the popularity of Wartbant swaps which involves putting a 4-takt motor from a Wartburg into the Trabbi.
That pollster's office is about five minutes from me...
Old school Democratic pollsters, leastway Fairbank started working for Dems shortly after the Ark landed; worked on a few of the same campaigns where he was doing the polling.
You'd be sweating too IF you were on the same ticket as Trumpsky. Who will win South Carolina, but by such a reduced margin that Graham could well lose his beloved (booster) seat in the US Senate.
And how many people on this forum were criticising the UK government for using Excel? This type of formula should be nowhere near a spreadsheet. It would be like Foxy treating his patients with a 19C book on phrenology or Dura Ace driving a Trabant.
I have driven a Trabbi. It has a three position fuel cutoff valve on the dashboard that was mysteriously labelled R, Z and A. You also can't coast in gears first through third as it will destroy the engine through lack of lubrication (two stroke with no oil injection and freewheel device only on 4th) so you're on the throttle or on the brakes 100% of the time in 1-3. Not exactly a relaxing driving experience. Hence the popularity of Wartbant swaps which involves putting a 4-takt motor from a Wartburg into the Trabbi.
Ever drive a Lada? Knew a fellow in Dublin who had one, he told me he like it, it was a good car. As for me, darn near ruptured myself getting into it, but then again I'm an overgrown American.
And how many people on this forum were criticising the UK government for using Excel? This type of formula should be nowhere near a spreadsheet. It would be like Foxy treating his patients with a 19C book on phrenology or Dura Ace driving a Trabant.
I have driven a Trabbi. It has a three position fuel cutoff valve on the dashboard that was mysteriously labelled R, Z and A. You also can't coast in gears first through third as it will destroy the engine through lack of lubrication (two stroke with no oil injection and freewheel device only on 4th) so you're on the throttle or on the brakes 100% of the time in 1-3. Not exactly a relaxing driving experience. Hence the popularity of Wartbant swaps which involves putting a 4-takt motor from a Wartburg into the Trabbi.
Ever drive a Lada? Knew a fellow in Dublin who had one, he told me he like it, it was a good car. As for me, darn near ruptured myself getting into it, but then again I'm an overgrown American.
I lived in Russia for nine years so I've owned one and driven plenty. They drive exactly like what they are; a poorly built copy of a 60s FIAT. Ironically, 'lada' is the genitive case of the word лад (harmony) even though they sound like a skeleton masturbating inside a metal filing cabinet. Only export models are branded Lada, in Russia they are branded VAZ. I had a 2106 model which I drove to the UK from Russia in about 2005. On fake Cypriot plates (LOL).
The @HYUFD model appears to be to follow the most accurate pollster for each state in 2016. Let’s try that. Here’s the final polls for Florida in 2016
Trafalgar Group Trump +4 Opinion Savvy Clinton +2 Quinnipiac Tie CBS News/YouGov Tie Remington Research Trump +3 Gravis* Clinton +1 CNN/ORC Clinton +1
RESULT Trump + 1.2
So, Quinnipiac and YouGov were closest percentage wise in Florida, with Remington being closest while also making a correct call. This year Quinnipiac have Biden 11% up. I don’t think Remington or YouGov have polled there yet. On your own logic, then, Biden wins Florida - something I don’t think will happen but consistent with following the most accurate available pollster from 2016. Florida’s 29 EC votes more than offset Michigan and Wisconsin
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not discounting Trafalgar, but you cherry pick data from just them. Trafalgar were 2.7% out in Trump’s favour in Florida but this year have him up by only 2% now. If they are the same percentage out as 2016 then Biden wins Florida. Same in Michigan where they have Trump 1% up but overstated him 1.7% in 2016.
That’s why we are all sceptical of you. You don’t just pick old poll that suits you you disregard the data within those same polls that doesn’t fit your argument. The cherry picked data you yourself cite shows Trafalgar overstating Trump regularly by, on average, roughly 2%. Which is more than the 1% they have him ahead in Michigan - as I say they overstated him there in 2016 by 1.7%. You also disregard your favourite pollster’s latest Wisconsin prediction of Biden by 3%.
Yes, Trump may yet win, no one with an understanding of probability denies that. But you have no evidence to persuade sceptics to shift the odds. Trafalgar, overall, are not quite as good a predictor of future events as Paul the Octopus, who called 85% of matches at the 2010 World Cup correctly. Trafalgar called 7 out of 9 state races correctly in 2016 - or roughly 77%. Then again, as you said the other day, odds are just a cop out. Which begs the question what you are doing posting so often on a gambling site.
That’s actually very wise. Will save lives. Given in-car phone syncing tech these days, it’s hard to see why people still faff about with their handsets while driving.
Everybody seems to be missing the story I was pointing to...It isn't the driving and using your phone one!
Such stuff only matters if there was improper influence in a professional capacity on top of it. I don't even remember if the investigations got anywhere on that
Comments
I'm genuinely sorrowful for those so trapped. It actually makes me wonder whether I'm similarly trapped and don't realize it: a scary thought.
--AS
Journos asked, didn't even the people who signed her election petition vote for her?
Turned out that Tories had sent a young operative out into the Labour heartland to get nomination papers signed for the Tory hopeful (who IIRC did not live in the area) and after much canvassing had come up with diddly squat.
Until he ran into a kindly bloke, a Labour supporter who took pitty on the lad's plight, and offered to sign the paper for him, and helped russle up a bunch of his friends to make up the remaining required signatures (think it was ten).
WITH the understanding that NONE of these folks was gonna vote for the Conservative candidate. And they did not.
The problem arises where a party is weak, has very few members and/or there is no local organisation. It looks as if this was the case for the Tories in some parts of Hackney. In extremis you just have to call door to door and ask voters whether they agree there should be a candidate from your party, and if so would they be willing to nominate your candidate whilst being under no obligation to vote for them. Eventually you’ll get ten signatures, but it can be a thankless task. It looks like this enterprising Tory came up with some imaginative wheezes to persuade people to sign, which isn’t on.
Consider also that during an election a Borough agent may have several moribund wards where finding the signatures is a challenge, and will also have a shedload of more useful stuff they will be eager to get back and do.
'With whom he was also having an affair' surely?
In summary:
- we should get preliminary data on efficacy by the end of this month
- we won't be sure on safety (a required number of people having had the vaccine in their systems for two months) until the third week of November
- manufacturing is ramping up, and they will deliver 100 million doses by the end of the year
They expect to apply for authorisation to distribute under FDA emergency use regulations by the end of November.
--AS
--AS
And Pfizer has managed the trials much better than AZN or Moderna - they've gone to places with rampant CV19 and got 10s of thousands of people signed up. It's amazing to think that Moderna and AZN had a multiple month headstart, but Pfizer may beat them to market.
https://twitter.com/apoorva_nyc/status/1317172671600275457
If so, might add that to my system, if that's OK with you... daily R per LLTA, anyone?
And the slightly lower accuracy is massively outweighed by the speed and low cost, which makes performing many more tests feasible, along with isolating the infected much earlier.
Might be worth making the last 4 plots a dotted line though.
AZN should really have been first out of the gate, but they weren't too quick at setting up the phase 2/3 trials and have been enrolling at a disappointingly slow rate, pauses notwithstanding. I've always been a bit skeptical about Moderna, but we'll see.
The UK feels very fractious at the moment. Let's hope for some good news soon to calm it down a little.
--AS
https://twitter.com/ADAlthousePhD/status/1317085928171708417
According to report Oct 1 by Daily Beast, Ace Tomato and Cahaly were involved in $1.4m internet ad buy for "Our American Century" on behalf of Trumpsky.
Tip o' the iceberg methinks.
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1317096548292038658?s=09
--AS
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1317204268642914306?s=19
--AS
Decent portfolio.
This type of formula should be nowhere near a spreadsheet. It would be like Foxy treating his patients with a 19C book on phrenology or Dura Ace driving a Trabant.
Another thing to see is that when the R fell below 1 after lockdown it was only ever in the 0.8-1.0 range. That's why this circuit breaker will fail, the measures we put in place weren't tough enough during the main lockdown to get the R down to 0.5 or 0.4 which China and other Asian countries managed and the circuit breaker is not even going to be as tough as the first one so the R won't fall far enough anyway.
Covid has brought us face-to-face with the need for common purpose
BY PAUL COLLIER"
https://unherd.com/2020/10/why-we-should-be-more-like-denmark/
As @AlwaysSinging points out, though, there are uncertainties involved in all of this.
What’s pretty certain, though, is if you test a lot more people, and get results immediately instead of a day or two later, even a less accurate test than this, which misses even more of the infected, would let you isolate a larger proportion of infected people while they are infectious.
Which is the name of the game.
Does anyone actually give a shit about this sort of stuff?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54573356
That's a pretty interesting development.
That won't help with the mental health crisis.
In other news, did you know that Pope Francis practises Catholicism?
PB Tories will explain this away, just like the racism
Perhaps she thought that, if her Prime Minister could get away with it, why not her?
THAT might be something that voters might just care about.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8849075/Now-Jeremy-Corbyn-breaks-rules-memorial.html
I think this is about the 4-5th time he has been caught not sticking to the rules now.
https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1317229237753970690
https://twitter.com/Urban_Pictures/status/1317239849829748737?s=20
Maybe one for @rcs1000, if it's not a trade secret?
May the poor teacher rest in peace.
Condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
Which one suspects was yet another one of Bob Barr's very special projects aimed (methinks) at persuading Trumpsky to grant him one of the MANY pardons likely to be announced between November 3 and January 21.
1) Voter suppression should be less bad than 2016. There are Dem governors and secretaries of state in lots of swing states, and there's been a lot of attention on the issue and a lot of improvements - and there's widespread postal voting, which avoids most of the suppression strategies.
2) There haven't been any Electoral College-related gerrymanders since 2016. No states have been added, removed or redrawn, and any census-related shenanigans won't be relevant until next time
3) Intimidation could happen but again postal voting helps, and there have been no signs of it reported so far.
So the only question is whether there's fraud; We've seen Trump complain about postal voting fraud a lot, which generally would be a sign that he's committing postal voting fraud, but there's no evidence of this to date and his crimes don't generally seem to be wildly subtle.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
OR catch the stories about the ballot harvest fraud planned by GOP for THIS election:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521054-videos-show-conservative-activists-discussing-limiting-mail-in-voting
So your initial thought that what Trumpsky complains about is exactly what he & GOP plan to do is spot on.
Biggest fly in their ointment is that their 2020 campaign appears even more inept and misguided than 2016 Clinton fiasco.
Doug Jones ahead in 'Bama !
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1317252683829551104?s=21
Actually expect re-election of Doug Jones to coincide with 2nd Coming. However, RNC may well be forced to divert precious resources into what by rights should be a totally safe seat in a totally safe state.
BTW, did any PBers notice that Coach Nick Saban of University of Alabama contracted COVID? Which is WAY bigger news in AL than when Trumpsky got it (if indeed he did).
Wonder IF this poll indicates some backlash from 'Bama fans against Coach Tuberville of UA's hated intra-state rival, Auburn University?
Though in runoff primary my theory that 'Bama fans would reject Tuberville in favor of Jeff Sessions proved to be NOT so hot as a betting proposition!
Lindsey Graham sweating buckets here.
https://twitter.com/aidachavez/status/1316522193711296513
Put another way, I've got some bets on the Republicans taking the seat back at 1/8 and I'm happy with those odds.
Trafalgar Group Trump +4
Opinion Savvy Clinton +2
Quinnipiac Tie
CBS News/YouGov Tie
Remington Research Trump +3
Gravis* Clinton +1
CNN/ORC Clinton +1
RESULT Trump + 1.2
So, Quinnipiac and YouGov were closest percentage wise in Florida, with Remington being closest while also making a correct call. This year Quinnipiac have Biden 11% up. I don’t think Remington or YouGov have polled there yet. On your own logic, then, Biden wins Florida - something I don’t think will happen but consistent with following the most accurate available pollster from 2016. Florida’s 29 EC votes more than offset Michigan and Wisconsin
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not discounting Trafalgar, but you cherry pick data from just them. Trafalgar were 2.7% out in Trump’s favour in Florida but this year have him up by only 2% now. If they are the same percentage out as 2016 then Biden wins Florida. Same in Michigan where they have Trump 1% up but overstated him 1.7% in 2016.
That’s why we are all sceptical of you. You don’t just pick old poll that suits you you disregard the data within those same polls that doesn’t fit your argument. The cherry picked data you yourself cite shows Trafalgar overstating Trump regularly by, on average, roughly 2%. Which is more than the 1% they have him ahead in Michigan - as I say they overstated him there in 2016 by 1.7%. You also disregard your favourite pollster’s latest Wisconsin prediction of Biden by 3%.
Yes, Trump may yet win, no one with an understanding of probability denies that. But you have no evidence to persuade sceptics to shift the odds. Trafalgar, overall, are not quite as good a predictor of future events as Paul the Octopus, who called 85% of matches at the 2010 World Cup correctly. Trafalgar called 7 out of 9 state races correctly in 2016 - or roughly 77%. Then again, as you said the other day, odds are just a cop out. Which begs the question what you are doing posting so often on a gambling site.