Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The polling gets even better for Biden but Betfair punters remain cautious – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 17 in General
The polling gets even better for Biden but Betfair punters remain cautious – politicalbetting.com

Latest Biden-Trump polling average pic.twitter.com/EY9kkYxK6X

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,205
    FPT

    Indeed, there is a whole South Korean saga about over diagnosis - and overtreatment - of slow growing, non-lethal cancers (thyroid) skewing not just the nation's cancer survival statistics, but its approach to treatment. To the detriment of patient care.

    See https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/11/thyroid-cancer-south-korea-cautionary-tale-about-dangers-overdiagnosis/
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,205
    Re Mike's post and the ACA. Here the loss aversion bias comes in. People value loss much more highly than gain, so losing healthcare coverage is something voters will value (i.e. not want) much more highly than they originally valued the gain of the same.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,319
    edited October 17
    TimT said:

    Re Mike's post and the ACA. Here the loss aversion bias comes in. People value loss much more highly than gain, so losing healthcare coverage is something voters will value (i.e. not want) much more highly than they originally valued the gain of the same.

    I think it is like the free bus pass that Gordon Brown announced for oldies like me in 2007. No party has ever dared taking that away yet the case for subsidising people like me is very thin.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    A perfect piece by Mike. Not only because I agree with it but because it's factual.

    I've placed more money on Biden and his coat tails today via Betfair.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    Cyclefree said:

    I know that there is little to say beyond expressing horror and sadness at a life so cruelly taken. But the fact that the beheading on the streets of a French capital of a teacher - for doing their job - barely registers is itself noteworthy.

    Have we become so inured to this sort of barbarism that we go “oh well, poor France” and carry on?

    If being woke or being against hate crimes meant anything substantive, we ought to be incensed at what really is a hate crime and the barbaric bullying in the name of religion of those who dare challenge it.

    That's just a dream, sadly.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    I was chatting to my film editor in L.A. a few days ago (one of my books is being turned into a feature film at the moment). He's distinctly left of centre but was reiterating how hated Clinton was, how she wouldn't deign to attend poorer voter areas, how out of touch.

    Mike is absolutely right about this. 2020 is NOTHING like 2016.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Barring something truly dramatic now the question isn't whether Biden wins or loses, the only question is the scale of his victory.

    By popular vote if not electoral college votes this looks set to be a landslide between 1980 or 1984 levels.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    16,171 new cases.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    IDP/Tipp is moving back towards Biden. I’d been concerned this week because Biden’s score had softened somewhat. But, it’s towards Biden again today and going in the wrong direction again for Trumpton.

    It was one of the most accurate pollsters in 2016, albeit slightly overstating the GOP.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100

    IDP/Tipp is moving back towards Biden. I’d been concerned this week because Biden’s score had softened somewhat. But, it’s towards Biden again today and going in the wrong direction again for Trumpton.

    It was one of the most accurate pollsters in 2016, albeit slightly overstating the GOP.

    They predicted a Trump popular vote win in 2016!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    16,171 new cases.

    It looks increasingly like it is plateauing.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,446

    Barring something truly dramatic now the question isn't whether Biden wins or loses, the only question is the scale of his victory.

    By popular vote if not electoral college votes this looks set to be a landslide between 1980 or 1984 levels.

    I think one thing that would help the debate on here is for there to be an agreed definition of a "landslide" in American terms.

    I would argue winning more than 350 EC votes is a landslide - in term of vote share, what do we think - a 15% lead?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,285
    stodge said:

    Barring something truly dramatic now the question isn't whether Biden wins or loses, the only question is the scale of his victory.

    By popular vote if not electoral college votes this looks set to be a landslide between 1980 or 1984 levels.

    I think one thing that would help the debate on here is for there to be an agreed definition of a "landslide" in American terms.

    I would argue winning more than 350 EC votes is a landslide - in term of vote share, what do we think - a 15% lead?
    A good point. I think 10% is a landslide perhaps? It gets a bit skewed because incumbent Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan in 1980 by under 10% but the EV share was 489 to 49. Astonishing!

    Not that the UK can ever be accused of a similarly tilted system ;)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    16,171 new cases.

    That will put us back into 11th place, ahead of South Africa.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    stodge said:

    Barring something truly dramatic now the question isn't whether Biden wins or loses, the only question is the scale of his victory.

    By popular vote if not electoral college votes this looks set to be a landslide between 1980 or 1984 levels.

    I think one thing that would help the debate on here is for there to be an agreed definition of a "landslide" in American terms.

    I would argue winning more than 350 EC votes is a landslide - in term of vote share, what do we think - a 15% lead?
    1980 and 1996 were 9% leads and I'd call both a landslide.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037
    On topic I agree with those who say that the polling is looking in landslide territory and the best that Trump can hope for at this point is a respectable defeat, as opposed to humiliation. The race has been so stable throughout and so many have voted already that time is really running out for Trump.

    At some point even Betfair is going to get this and there is going to be a lot of people trying to cover their positions.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,324
    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066

    16,171 new cases.

    It looks increasingly like it is plateauing.
    Well if its still below 20k come Tuesday / Wednesday we might be able to say perhaps that could be the case.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,446

    stodge said:

    Barring something truly dramatic now the question isn't whether Biden wins or loses, the only question is the scale of his victory.

    By popular vote if not electoral college votes this looks set to be a landslide between 1980 or 1984 levels.

    I think one thing that would help the debate on here is for there to be an agreed definition of a "landslide" in American terms.

    I would argue winning more than 350 EC votes is a landslide - in term of vote share, what do we think - a 15% lead?
    1980 and 1996 were 9% leads and I'd call both a landslide.
    Fair point - they both were and well in excess of 350 EC votes. Perhaps we need to change the EC number up to nearer 400. Clinton won 370 in 1992 despite a vote lead of only 6.4% and Obama won 365 in 2008 with a 7.2% lead over McCain.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,671
    edited October 17
    This is why normal healthcare becomes problematic in a pandemic. QMC in Nottingham cancelling most surgery.



    And spread within the hospital is a problem.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 49,066
    Foxy said:

    This is why normal healthcare becomes problematic in a pandemic. QMC in Nottingham cancelling most surgery.

    twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1317171456984403975?s=19

    And spread within the hospital is a problem.

    twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1317418863659798530?s=19

    The backlog is going to take 10 years to clear.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,037

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100
    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,245

    TimT said:

    Re Mike's post and the ACA. Here the loss aversion bias comes in. People value loss much more highly than gain, so losing healthcare coverage is something voters will value (i.e. not want) much more highly than they originally valued the gain of the same.

    I think it is like the free bus pass that Gordon Brown announced for oldies like me in 2007. No party has ever dared taking that away yet the case for subsidising people like me is very thin.
    I don't mind bus passes for the oldies - it reduces cars on the road and helps the more vulnerable.

    The monstrosity that is triple lock pensions though ...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    edited October 17
    Foxy said:

    This is why normal healthcare becomes problematic in a pandemic. QMC in Nottingham cancelling most surgery.



    And spread within the hospital is a problem.

    Wonder how much is caused by medical students...?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,245
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    I remember an old PB piece from Morus around 2009 speculating that Obama would drop Biden for someone young and dynamic as his second term VP.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    Alistair said:

    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

    50:50 chance he did it, or 50:50 chance the guy was a Russian spy?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    How much of the “Hunter Biden story” can you 100% categorically say you believe has any serious truth behind it as opposed to it basically entirely being a fiction from start to finish?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,446
    Championship this afternoon (10 matches):

    1 Home win
    2 Draws
    7 Away wins.

    I've heard the absence of fans has led to more away wins. Is this true?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048
    alex_ said:

    Alistair said:

    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

    50:50 chance he did it, or 50:50 chance the guy was a Russian spy?
    Yes
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 183
    The Hunter Biden story is falling apart which is annoying the unhinged Trump cult . And even if there was some truth in it when the comparison is the most corrupt US administration in history then how much would it move the needle .
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 4,659
    stodge said:

    Championship this afternoon (10 matches):

    1 Home win
    2 Draws
    7 Away wins.

    I've heard the absence of fans has led to more away wins. Is this true?

    I suspect it will do - be interesting to see the data. There is almost no home advantage without fans.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 8,420
    edited October 17
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Barring something truly dramatic now the question isn't whether Biden wins or loses, the only question is the scale of his victory.

    By popular vote if not electoral college votes this looks set to be a landslide between 1980 or 1984 levels.

    I think one thing that would help the debate on here is for there to be an agreed definition of a "landslide" in American terms.

    I would argue winning more than 350 EC votes is a landslide - in term of vote share, what do we think - a 15% lead?
    1980 and 1996 were 9% leads and I'd call both a landslide.
    Fair point - they both were and well in excess of 350 EC votes. Perhaps we need to change the EC number up to nearer 400. Clinton won 370 in 1992 despite a vote lead of only 6.4% and Obama won 365 in 2008 with a 7.2% lead over McCain.
    For some reason I think of 400 as the benchmark for a landslide. No, I don't know why either.

    Similarly I think of a majority of 100+ as a landslide in the UK. There's no logic in that too.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,671
    nico679 said:

    The Hunter Biden story is falling apart which is annoying the unhinged Trump cult . And even if there was some truth in it when the comparison is the most corrupt US administration in history then how much would it move the needle .

    The "lock them up" mentality, much as it is understandable, is a very negative way of dealing with former leaders. It is only likely to lead to even more extreme forms of holding onto power.

    Pointless too. For all the rallies and chants, were there any charges against Hillary, or any real attempt to bring them?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Barring something truly dramatic now the question isn't whether Biden wins or loses, the only question is the scale of his victory.

    By popular vote if not electoral college votes this looks set to be a landslide between 1980 or 1984 levels.

    I think one thing that would help the debate on here is for there to be an agreed definition of a "landslide" in American terms.

    I would argue winning more than 350 EC votes is a landslide - in term of vote share, what do we think - a 15% lead?
    1980 and 1996 were 9% leads and I'd call both a landslide.
    Fair point - they both were and well in excess of 350 EC votes. Perhaps we need to change the EC number up to nearer 400. Clinton won 370 in 1992 despite a vote lead of only 6.4% and Obama won 365 in 2008 with a 7.2% lead over McCain.
    For some reason I think of 400 as the benchmark for a landslide. No, I don't know why either.

    Similarly I think of a majority of 100+ as a landslide in the UK. There's no logic in that too.
    Landslide in the U.K. has a consequence it doesn’t have in the US though. Unless you try to link it to what happens simultaneously in the House and Senate (eg the electorate determines, to the extent that they can given Senate arrangements) that the want to give President and his party near unfettered power.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    edited October 17
    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    The Hunter Biden story is falling apart which is annoying the unhinged Trump cult . And even if there was some truth in it when the comparison is the most corrupt US administration in history then how much would it move the needle .

    The "lock them up" mentality, much as it is understandable, is a very negative way of dealing with former leaders. It is only likely to lead to even more extreme forms of holding onto power.

    Pointless too. For all the rallies and chants, were there any charges against Hillary, or any real attempt to bring them?
    I think Trump was keen but the DoJ either wouldn’t play ball or couldn’t find the evidence.

    It’s quite ironic at the moment that Trump is berating Pompeo for not releasing all the Clinton emails even though he’s effectively in a total catch-22. The only way he can realistically release them is if they DON’T contain classified information compromising national security!
  • DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    EVERY American president has at least one dipshit relative, it's a tradition. Heck, Trumpsky's got an entire Adams Family way creepier and far nastier than the TV version.

    Hunter Biden is a pimple on the ass of creation. A troubled nincompoop, which is why Putinist keep bringing him up - and make ZERO mention of his late brother who had a much more respectable resume.

    Fact that Republican twits keep on yammering re: HB is just another sign that they are in DEEP hole of there own making, and can see no way out except to keep digggggggggging.
  • rcs1000 said:

    alex_ said:

    Alistair said:

    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

    50:50 chance he did it, or 50:50 chance the guy was a Russian spy?
    Yes
    Speaking of odds, methinks they are 100% and 100%
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    EVERY American president has at least one dipshit relative, it's a tradition.
    Same with PMs, I'd always thought, but I'm not sure who May's would have been.

    Though I guess really is just that we all have at least one dipshit relative, and to paraphrase, if we think we don't it is because we are the dipshit.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,641
    stodge said:

    Championship this afternoon (10 matches):

    1 Home win
    2 Draws
    7 Away wins.

    I've heard the absence of fans has led to more away wins. Is this true?

    Current PL is 16 home wins 19 away and 5 draws.
    So that holds up. The draws are very low too (The 2 today bring it closer to normal).
    Plenty more goals too. Dunno if either of these applied to last season.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    EVERY American president has at least one dipshit relative, it's a tradition.
    Same with PMs, I'd always thought, but I'm not sure who May's would have been.

    Though I guess really is just that we all have at least one dipshit relative, and to paraphrase, if we think we don't it is because we are the dipshit.
    Can’t we just settle for the traditional term “black sheep”? Obviously being that one myself...? ;)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,641
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    EVERY American president has at least one dipshit relative, it's a tradition.
    Same with PMs, I'd always thought, but I'm not sure who May's would have been.

    Though I guess really is just that we all have at least one dipshit relative, and to paraphrase, if we think we don't it is because we are the dipshit.
    May is a childless only child whose parents are dead.
    That really helps on the idiot relative front. If not much else.
  • kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    EVERY American president has at least one dipshit relative, it's a tradition.
    Same with PMs, I'd always thought, but I'm not sure who May's would have been.

    Though I guess really is just that we all have at least one dipshit relative, and to paraphrase, if we think we don't it is because we are the dipshit.
    Could be worse.

    Jo and Rachel Johnson have a dipshit relative who is the PM.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 183
    Nearly 20% of 2016 turnout in terms of votes cast with Texas now showing nearly 40% and that’s with two weeks of early and mail in voting to go .

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    EVERY American president has at least one dipshit relative, it's a tradition.
    Same with PMs, I'd always thought, but I'm not sure who May's would have been.

    Though I guess really is just that we all have at least one dipshit relative, and to paraphrase, if we think we don't it is because we are the dipshit.
    Could be worse.

    Jo and Rachel Johnson have a dipshit relative who is the PM.
    Indeed, but Boris still has Stanley to fill the role for him.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,847
    Covid victim Zlatan Ibrahimovic on a first half hat trick in the Milan derby
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,675
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    How much of the “Hunter Biden story” can you 100% categorically say you believe has any serious truth behind it as opposed to it basically entirely being a fiction from start to finish?
    I think the Biden campaign is being smart by just ignoring the story entirely. Not making the mistake Remain did with the bus and £350m a week.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,324
    alex_ said:

    Alistair said:

    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

    50:50 chance he did it, or 50:50 chance the guy was a Russian spy?
    I don't think Rudy is entirely clear in his own head about that. The degeneration of Giuliani (from an admittedly lowish start) is one of the minor notes in the Trump symphony.

    “My guess is that George Soros is behind this counter-offensive… because he wants to create a socialist country,”
  • DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    I remember an old PB piece from Morus around 2009 speculating that Obama would drop Biden for someone young and dynamic as his second term VP.
    Speculation that sitting president will swap out his VP for a new model for the re-election effort is a hearty perennial of American politics.

    Used to be quite common back when folks used to joke, that two brothers ran away from home: one became a sailor, the other was elected Vice President - and neither were ever heard of again.

    Going back seventy years:

    >> 1940 FDR's first VP John Nance Garner, a conservative who did NOT support a 3rd term, was replaced by avid New Dealer (and former Republican) Henry Wallace.

    >> 1944 when Wallace was dumped and replaced by Harry Truman, because many in Democratic establishment thought Wallace was a weirdo and potential electoral liability, and also because they feared (as it indeed transpired) that FDR might not survive a 4th term, and VP would end up in the White House.

    >> 1956 there was speculation that Ike might dump Nixon as his running mate, fueled in part because the General was known to be less than enamored with Tricky Dick.

    >> 1980 a year when IIRC there was no talk about President dumping his VP, in large measure because Mondale worked VERY hard at being a VERY loyal & supportive second banana

    >> 1972 for which there is MUCH evidence (including from Nixon Tapes) that RN seriously considered dumping Spiro Agnew (who he considered a pushy idiot) in favor of former Democrat John Connolly (who he'd put in the Cabinet)

    >> 1984 there was pressure from right-wing Republicans for Reagan to dump George Bush the Elder, but the Gipper decided against it.

    >> 1996 similar situation to 1980

    >> 2004 in his memoirs George Bush the Younger said he considered dumping Dick Cheney in order to "demonstrate that I was in charge". Of course he did NOT (to his own regret) thus demonstrating that it REALLY was the Cheney-Bush administration after all.

    >> 2012 as noted on this thread, Obama was urged by some of his inner circle to give Biden the old heave-ho (with Hillary Clinton being the most likely replacement) but the President thought the better of it, and kept Joe on board.

    >> 2020 there was some speculation (including by yours truly) that Trumpsky might dump Bobblehead.

    >> 2004

    >> 2012
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,518

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    The actual figures used by the Imperial College model:


    It's also interesting to note that Ioannidis's figures (which he's been pushing since April at least, but had trouble getting accepted) and have received considerable criticism (eg https://hildabastian.net/index.php/91 and https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/p6tto8hl/release/1 in earlier attempts to get reviewed and published (comments like "RR:C19 Evidence Scale rating by reviewer:
    Misleading. Serious flaws and errors in the methods and data render the study conclusions misinformative. The results and conclusions of the ideal study are at least as likely to conclude the opposite of its results and conclusions than agree. Decision-makers should not consider this evidence in any decision.") do seem rather discordant with actual death rates in many places around the world.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,518
    I do occasionally drop in on TobyYoungHatesRestrictions.org lockdownsceptics.org out of a morbid curiosity to see just what basic concept or fact Toby’s misunderstood or misrepresented recently, or what quixotic “solution” or denialism has been embraced today (we’ve had that if they pick enough holes in the Imperial report from March or Professor Ferguson’s record, we can abandon restrictions or would never have entered lockdown, and if we call enough people names it will fix everything (not even kidding)).

    Now, apparently, they’ve “proved” that only 28% of us are susceptible to coronavirus any more and 72% have either had it or have cross-immunity already.

    ”This is not far from herd immunity”.

    No kidding. In fact, if only 2 in 7 people are vulnerable, then the R rate is divided by seven-over-two for the real reproduction rate of the virus in the wild. So if we’re experiencing an R of 1.2, then it would (without that level of immunity) actually be 1.2 x 3.5.

    Wow. The amount of violating of restrictions and people socialising is up to what would have caused an R rate of 4.2 when we had no resistance. That’s considerably more interaction and socialising than we had back when there was no pandemic.

    It’s such a relief to learn that we’d all gone back to normal (and further) without me even noticing.

    (More seriously, he's getting closer and closer to going full-on antivaxxer, which could cause serious hassle if enough of his followers swallow it)
  • alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Republicans in a Twitter rage over Hunter Biden story
    Social media once again finds itself at the centre of controversy over bias and disinformation"

    https://www.ft.com/content/0aa949e8-91ca-4cc3-b4fa-6af172bc9226

    Republicans banging on about Hunter Biden when the whole Trump clan has been at it for the past 4 years is the rankest projectionism. "SAD!"
    Trump and his gang are the most corrupt administration in my life time, gouging off the public purse at every opportunity, but that doesn't make the Hunter Biden story ok. Its yet another example of how poor the choice Americans have this time.
    How much of the “Hunter Biden story” can you 100% categorically say you believe has any serious truth behind it as opposed to it basically entirely being a fiction from start to finish?
    I think the Biden campaign is being smart by just ignoring the story entirely. Not making the mistake Remain did with the bus and £350m a week.
    Is THIS what you mean by ignoring the story?

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lashes-out-new-york-post-429486

    Think the reason Biden campaign did NOT ignore it, was because they realized that a) GOP was flogging a dead horse; and b) the re-warmed "scandal" would boomerang against Trumpsky, which indeed is exactly what's happened.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,692
    edited October 17
    Out and about in Leamington Spa this afternoon and, very unusually, I actually heard several different groups of people talking about the mess the covid reaction has become. You do not usually hear such conversations around here - or at least I don't. Anyway, if the mood here in a relatively benign Tier 1 area is anything to go by, I do not see how this current situation is going to hold. We're either going to move to a much stricter, seriously enforced, nationwide lockdown, or the whole thing is going to break down entirely as more and more people ignore the current sets of controls.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048

    alex_ said:

    Alistair said:

    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

    50:50 chance he did it, or 50:50 chance the guy was a Russian spy?
    I don't think Rudy is entirely clear in his own head about that. The degeneration of Giuliani (from an admittedly lowish start) is one of the minor notes in the Trump symphony.

    “My guess is that George Soros is behind this counter-offensive… because he wants to create a socialist country,”
    Has George Soros ever shown any particular signs of socialism...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 7,090

    Out and about in Leamington Spa this afternoon and, very unusually, I actually heard several different groups of people talking about the mess the covid reaction has become. You do not usually hear such conversations around here - or at least I don't. Anyway, if the mood here in a relatively benign Tier 1 area is anything to go by, I do not see how this current situation is going to hold. We're either going to move to a much stricter, seriously enforced, nationwide lockdown, or the whole thing is going to break down entirely as more and more people ignore the current sets of controls.

    Kind of. Many wont follow the letter of the law but will change their actions to reflect their tier level. I am okay with reducing my level of social interactions to stop the virus spreading as we move up the tiers but will do it on a primarily common sense rather than primarily legal basis. That will still align with the govts underlying objectives if not adherence to the letter of the law.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048

    I do occasionally drop in on TobyYoungHatesRestrictions.org lockdownsceptics.org out of a morbid curiosity to see just what basic concept or fact Toby’s misunderstood or misrepresented recently, or what quixotic “solution” or denialism has been embraced today (we’ve had that if they pick enough holes in the Imperial report from March or Professor Ferguson’s record, we can abandon restrictions or would never have entered lockdown, and if we call enough people names it will fix everything (not even kidding)).

    Now, apparently, they’ve “proved” that only 28% of us are susceptible to coronavirus any more and 72% have either had it or have cross-immunity already.

    ”This is not far from herd immunity”.

    No kidding. In fact, if only 2 in 7 people are vulnerable, then the R rate is divided by seven-over-two for the real reproduction rate of the virus in the wild. So if we’re experiencing an R of 1.2, then it would (without that level of immunity) actually be 1.2 x 3.5.

    Wow. The amount of violating of restrictions and people socialising is up to what would have caused an R rate of 4.2 when we had no resistance. That’s considerably more interaction and socialising than we had back when there was no pandemic.

    It’s such a relief to learn that we’d all gone back to normal (and further) without me even noticing.

    (More seriously, he's getting closer and closer to going full-on antivaxxer, which could cause serious hassle if enough of his followers swallow it)

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

    87% infection rate after a single choir meeting. 2% IFR - albeit when we knew less about treatment than we do now.

    Also, it's good anecdotal evidence of the importance of viral load.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964
    edited October 17
    Off Topic

    May have been mentioned already.

    Leaked letter to a Senior Transport guy here in Wales suggests two week "fire break" from 1800 on Friday next. (Grauniad)

    Worrying times. I'll report back on compliance.

    BigG. will be spitting feathers until Johnson launches his own for England a fortnight later.
  • Off Topic

    May have been mentioned already.

    Leaked letter to a Senior Transport guy here in Wales suggests two week "fire break" from 1800 on Friday next. (Grauniad)

    Worrying times. I'll report back on compliance.

    BigG. will be spitting feathers until Johnson launches his own for England a fortnight later.

    It is a nonsense closing down local businesses for a dubious gain

    And how does Drakeford get out of it after 14 days
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,324
    rcs1000 said:

    alex_ said:

    Alistair said:

    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

    50:50 chance he did it, or 50:50 chance the guy was a Russian spy?
    I don't think Rudy is entirely clear in his own head about that. The degeneration of Giuliani (from an admittedly lowish start) is one of the minor notes in the Trump symphony.

    “My guess is that George Soros is behind this counter-offensive… because he wants to create a socialist country,”
    Has George Soros ever shown any particular signs of socialism...
    The fcukwits that think Soros was an SS officer probably also assume that he was a national socialist.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553
    I’m still hoping (rather optimistically) for McConnell to get kicked out.

    One of Kentucky's largest newspapers endorses McConnell's challenger
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521533-one-of-kentuckys-largest-newspapers-endorses-mcconnells-challenger

    ... The Lexington Herald-Leader, one of Kentucky’s largest newspapers, has endorsed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s Democratic challenger Amy McGrath for the state’s senate seat.

    The newspaper wrote in its endorsement that many people feel Kentucky’s senate race is “the most important contest in the country” next to the presidential election, “with the future of our democracy riding on the right choice.”

    “During his 36 years in office, McConnell has made it perfectly clear that his only passion is the pursuit of power, his own and that of the Republican Party,” the paper said. “For that reason alone, we would endorse his opponent.

    “Luckily for voters, McGrath, a former fighter pilot and public servant, would make an excellent senator who would actually put the needs and interests of Kentuckians above her own," it continued...
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,518
    rcs1000 said:

    I do occasionally drop in on TobyYoungHatesRestrictions.org lockdownsceptics.org out of a morbid curiosity to see just what basic concept or fact Toby’s misunderstood or misrepresented recently, or what quixotic “solution” or denialism has been embraced today (we’ve had that if they pick enough holes in the Imperial report from March or Professor Ferguson’s record, we can abandon restrictions or would never have entered lockdown, and if we call enough people names it will fix everything (not even kidding)).

    Now, apparently, they’ve “proved” that only 28% of us are susceptible to coronavirus any more and 72% have either had it or have cross-immunity already.

    ”This is not far from herd immunity”.

    No kidding. In fact, if only 2 in 7 people are vulnerable, then the R rate is divided by seven-over-two for the real reproduction rate of the virus in the wild. So if we’re experiencing an R of 1.2, then it would (without that level of immunity) actually be 1.2 x 3.5.

    Wow. The amount of violating of restrictions and people socialising is up to what would have caused an R rate of 4.2 when we had no resistance. That’s considerably more interaction and socialising than we had back when there was no pandemic.

    It’s such a relief to learn that we’d all gone back to normal (and further) without me even noticing.

    (More seriously, he's getting closer and closer to going full-on antivaxxer, which could cause serious hassle if enough of his followers swallow it)

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm

    87% infection rate after a single choir meeting. 2% IFR - albeit when we knew less about treatment than we do now.

    Also, it's good anecdotal evidence of the importance of viral load.
    Well, apparently the IFR for them should have been [checks notes] 0.05%, and at least a third of them should have been already immune.

    According to Toby Young and his people.
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 581

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    Off Topic

    May have been mentioned already.

    Leaked letter to a Senior Transport guy here in Wales suggests two week "fire break" from 1800 on Friday next. (Grauniad)

    Worrying times. I'll report back on compliance.

    BigG. will be spitting feathers until Johnson launches his own for England a fortnight later.

    It is a nonsense closing down local businesses for a dubious gain

    And how does Drakeford get out of it after 14 days
    Off topic

    They would argue they are following the science, I guess.

    The decision may be erroneous (maybe not) but at least they have been unequivocal. I will reserve judgement in case Johnson does the same, only later.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,518

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    It’s not.
    That’s rather the point.

    However, those who want to believe it will believe it with total credulousness. I mean, look at how they continue to unquestioningly follow Gupta.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    edited October 17
    UK cases, specimen date, scaled to 100K population

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    UK R calculation (experimental)

    image
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,324
    The Tele with a hugely surprising take.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 7,090

    UK cases by specimen date

    image

    Looks like the covid app risk level is going off tier level rather than actual data.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    edited October 17
    UK case summary

    image
    image
    image
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 581

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    It’s not.
    That’s rather the point.

    However, those who want to believe it will believe it with total credulousness. I mean, look at how they continue to unquestioningly follow Gupta.
    Fair enough, what is wrong with that report and what are the correct figures?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    UK hospitals

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 7,355
    UK Deaths

    image
    image
    image
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,205
    Nigelb said:

    I’m still hoping (rather optimistically) for McConnell to get kicked out.

    One of Kentucky's largest newspapers endorses McConnell's challenger
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521533-one-of-kentuckys-largest-newspapers-endorses-mcconnells-challenger

    ... The Lexington Herald-Leader, one of Kentucky’s largest newspapers, has endorsed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s Democratic challenger Amy McGrath for the state’s senate seat.

    The newspaper wrote in its endorsement that many people feel Kentucky’s senate race is “the most important contest in the country” next to the presidential election, “with the future of our democracy riding on the right choice.”

    “During his 36 years in office, McConnell has made it perfectly clear that his only passion is the pursuit of power, his own and that of the Republican Party,” the paper said. “For that reason alone, we would endorse his opponent.

    “Luckily for voters, McGrath, a former fighter pilot and public servant, would make an excellent senator who would actually put the needs and interests of Kentuckians above her own," it continued...

    Unfortunately, he looks safe to me, but he is #2 on my wish list after the obvious #1.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,130
    Trump has been slagging off various Republican senators in the last few days. Anyone know why?

    Seems risky re supreme court vote.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    kjh said:

    Trump has been slagging off various Republican senators in the last few days. Anyone know why?

    Seems risky re supreme court vote.

    Winning that vote is more important to them than Trump's provocations, quite possible more important than retaining their own seats, perhaps.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679

    The Tele with a hugely surprising take.

    There may well be aspects to criticise, or at least the hero worship may well be over the top, I couldn't say, but that particular take, at this particular moment, comes across on the just too bold side to be serious and not trolling.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,324
    kle4 said:

    kjh said:

    Trump has been slagging off various Republican senators in the last few days. Anyone know why?

    Seems risky re supreme court vote.

    Winning that vote is more important to them than Trump's provocations, quite possible more important than retaining their own seats, perhaps.
    Could be Trump preparing a post defeat narrative?

    'If it hadn't been for those pesky RINOs and traitors....'
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    If CV19 just killed one in four hundred people (mostly older) and moved on, that would be a fair position to take.

    But that's not how it works.

    What happens is that somewhere between 1% and 5% of people (depending on the demographic) who catch it end up in hospital. With the right treatments, most of these people recover.

    But if two million people all got CV19 at once, then you'd end up with the health service being utterly swamped, and a large number of those people who went to hospital would end up dying.

    Which is why even the herd immunity bunch want us to find a sustainable number of infections, then implement measures to get R down to 1, and then allow it to burn through the population.

    Of course... given you still have to implement the measures required to bring R down to 1 in this scenario, and it might well take a couple of years to reach 60% of people having had Covid, and it means hospitals are swamped with CV19 patients for the duration, it does raise the question of why you don't simply implement the measures with a lower baseline level of Covid.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 18,245
    rcs1000 said:

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    If CV19 just killed one in four hundred people (mostly older) and moved on, that would be a fair position to take.

    But that's not how it works.

    What happens is that somewhere between 1% and 5% of people (depending on the demographic) who catch it end up in hospital. With the right treatments, most of these people recover.

    But if two million people all got CV19 at once, then you'd end up with the health service being utterly swamped, and a large number of those people who went to hospital would end up dying.

    Which is why even the herd immunity bunch want us to find a sustainable number of infections, then implement measures to get R down to 1, and then allow it to burn through the population.

    Of course... given you still have to implement the measures required to bring R down to 1 in this scenario, and it might well take a couple of years to reach 60% of people having had Covid, and it means hospitals are swamped with CV19 patients for the duration, it does raise the question of why you don't simply implement the measures with a lower baseline level of Covid.
    You think 1% of the young end up in hospital with covid ?

    Because I'm not seeing reports of school pupils and students doing so.

    Or for that matter their parents and lecturers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048
    edited October 17

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    It’s not.
    That’s rather the point.

    However, those who want to believe it will believe it with total credulousness. I mean, look at how they continue to unquestioningly follow Gupta.
    Fair enough, what is wrong with that report and what are the correct figures?
    It depends on who catches it, and how many people have it any point in time: if it's mostly people under the age of 65, and hospitals are not overloaded, then it probably is 0.25%.

    On the other hand, if it's a representative sample of the population, and there are (say) one in 30 people infected at any one time (i.e. two and bit million), then you might well end up with IFRs north of 2%.

    But here's the thing:

    These things are all theoretical anyway, because countries shut down just as hard when there are no restrictions as when there are many.

    Go to Nevada. Las Vegas is open. You can go and stay at the Bellagio or the Wynn or the Ritz Carlton (all Five Star hotels) for $120 a night. You can gamble and drink in bars and eat good food. And you can fly to Vegas for a fraction of the normal price.

    The Vegas occupancy rate is normally 89%.

    Yet it's a ghost town right now. People simply aren't going to Vegas (no matter how cheap it is) because they're scared of catching CV19. Irrespective of government diktat, behaviour is changed.

    See: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/encore-at-wynn-las-vegas-low-demand-operating-hours-changes
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 581
    rcs1000 said:

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    If CV19 just killed one in four hundred people (mostly older) and moved on, that would be a fair position to take.

    But that's not how it works.

    What happens is that somewhere between 1% and 5% of people (depending on the demographic) who catch it end up in hospital. With the right treatments, most of these people recover.

    But if two million people all got CV19 at once, then you'd end up with the health service being utterly swamped, and a large number of those people who went to hospital would end up dying.

    Which is why even the herd immunity bunch want us to find a sustainable number of infections, then implement measures to get R down to 1, and then allow it to burn through the population.

    Of course... given you still have to implement the measures required to bring R down to 1 in this scenario, and it might well take a couple of years to reach 60% of people having had Covid, and it means hospitals are swamped with CV19 patients for the duration, it does raise the question of why you don't simply implement the measures with a lower baseline level of Covid.
    Right, so the fatality rate must be lower than 1-5% as not everyone who goes to hospital with it would have died with no treatment. Let's say half would die and half survive as an estimate.

    So we're looking at a virus that kills around 0.5%-2.5% of those that it infects. And that is only if we are identifying everyone that catches it, it is probably lower in reality.

    That seems not so dissimilar to the flu numbers and if these numbers are accurate I think that closing down the country for this virus is a massive mistake.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048

    rcs1000 said:

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    If CV19 just killed one in four hundred people (mostly older) and moved on, that would be a fair position to take.

    But that's not how it works.

    What happens is that somewhere between 1% and 5% of people (depending on the demographic) who catch it end up in hospital. With the right treatments, most of these people recover.

    But if two million people all got CV19 at once, then you'd end up with the health service being utterly swamped, and a large number of those people who went to hospital would end up dying.

    Which is why even the herd immunity bunch want us to find a sustainable number of infections, then implement measures to get R down to 1, and then allow it to burn through the population.

    Of course... given you still have to implement the measures required to bring R down to 1 in this scenario, and it might well take a couple of years to reach 60% of people having had Covid, and it means hospitals are swamped with CV19 patients for the duration, it does raise the question of why you don't simply implement the measures with a lower baseline level of Covid.
    Right, so the fatality rate must be lower than 1-5% as not everyone who goes to hospital with it would have died with no treatment. Let's say half would die and half survive as an estimate.

    So we're looking at a virus that kills around 0.5%-2.5% of those that it infects. And that is only if we are identifying everyone that catches it, it is probably lower in reality.

    That seems not so dissimilar to the flu numbers and if these numbers are accurate I think that closing down the country for this virus is a massive mistake.
    That's about 14x higher than flu numbers.
  • @Malmesbury - how did you calculate your experimental R rates?

    in Windsor and Maidenhead the local council have started negotiations about moving up to level 2, but your calculation suggests we don't need to.
  • Nigelb said:

    I’m still hoping (rather optimistically) for McConnell to get kicked out.

    One of Kentucky's largest newspapers endorses McConnell's challenger
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521533-one-of-kentuckys-largest-newspapers-endorses-mcconnells-challenger

    ... The Lexington Herald-Leader, one of Kentucky’s largest newspapers, has endorsed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s Democratic challenger Amy McGrath for the state’s senate seat.

    The newspaper wrote in its endorsement that many people feel Kentucky’s senate race is “the most important contest in the country” next to the presidential election, “with the future of our democracy riding on the right choice.”

    “During his 36 years in office, McConnell has made it perfectly clear that his only passion is the pursuit of power, his own and that of the Republican Party,” the paper said. “For that reason alone, we would endorse his opponent.

    “Luckily for voters, McGrath, a former fighter pilot and public servant, would make an excellent senator who would actually put the needs and interests of Kentuckians above her own," it continued...

    Note that Lexington Herald-Leader (#2 in circulation, #1 is Louisville Courier-Journal) endorsed Amy McGrath for US House in 2018 (see won Lexington but lost rest of district). However, they endorsed her Democratic opponent Charles Booker in the 2020 primary. Further note they endorsed Mitch's 2014 Democratic rival Alison Grimes.

    Kentucky's largest newspaper, and one with a LONG reputation for journalism AND political influence, is the Louisville Courier-Journal, which is historically Democratic and still is (mostly).

    Both papers have extensive circulation across the Blue Grass State. Not absolutely sure, but reckon paper with 3rd biggest KY impact is Cincinnati Enquirer which has extensive circulation in Northern KY and is traditionally & functionally Republican in orientation.

    Mitch McConnell is one of the great survivors of Kentucky politics, first elected to public office in 1977 as Judge Executive of Jefferson County (Louisville), re-elected in 1981, then elected to US Senate in 1984 versus an incumbent Dem.

    Mitch has never been Mr Popularity in Kentucky, largely because of his rather aloof personality. But he IS respected.

    His biggest problems THIS election year are his opposition to Obamacare (popular esp. in Eastern KY which is part of Appalachia), the belief that he does NOT use his national clout enough for Kentucky's benefit (quite unlike the late US Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia); and finally Trumpsky (who will again win the state but by reduced margin).

    Biggest pluses for Mitch are continued erosion of traditional Democratic vote in much of rural Kentucky, esp in Western KY (where many Dems had Confederate ancestors) and Eastern Ky (where labor esp United Mine Workers dominated the electorate from New Deal to end of 20th century).
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 581
    edited October 17
    rcs1000 said:


    Right, so the fatality rate must be lower than 1-5% as not everyone who goes to hospital with it would have died with no treatment. Let's say half would die and half survive as an estimate.

    So we're looking at a virus that kills around 0.5%-2.5% of those that it infects. And that is only if we are identifying everyone that catches it, it is probably lower in reality.

    That seems not so dissimilar to the flu numbers and if these numbers are accurate I think that closing down the country for this virus is a massive mistake.

    Ok I've looked and the latest estimate is 0.1% for flu, although this is a lot lower than 6 months ago when the figure was around 0.5% when I last checked. Very strange.

    Ignore the comparison to flu, a disease that kills 1% of people, the question is should that close down the country? I would say no.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,205

    Nigelb said:

    I’m still hoping (rather optimistically) for McConnell to get kicked out.

    One of Kentucky's largest newspapers endorses McConnell's challenger
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521533-one-of-kentuckys-largest-newspapers-endorses-mcconnells-challenger

    ... The Lexington Herald-Leader, one of Kentucky’s largest newspapers, has endorsed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s Democratic challenger Amy McGrath for the state’s senate seat.

    The newspaper wrote in its endorsement that many people feel Kentucky’s senate race is “the most important contest in the country” next to the presidential election, “with the future of our democracy riding on the right choice.”

    “During his 36 years in office, McConnell has made it perfectly clear that his only passion is the pursuit of power, his own and that of the Republican Party,” the paper said. “For that reason alone, we would endorse his opponent.

    “Luckily for voters, McGrath, a former fighter pilot and public servant, would make an excellent senator who would actually put the needs and interests of Kentuckians above her own," it continued...

    Note that Lexington Herald-Leader (#2 in circulation, #1 is Louisville Courier-Journal) endorsed Amy McGrath for US House in 2018 (see won Lexington but lost rest of district). However, they endorsed her Democratic opponent Charles Booker in the 2020 primary. Further note they endorsed Mitch's 2014 Democratic rival Alison Grimes.

    Kentucky's largest newspaper, and one with a LONG reputation for journalism AND political influence, is the Louisville Courier-Journal, which is historically Democratic and still is (mostly).

    Both papers have extensive circulation across the Blue Grass State. Not absolutely sure, but reckon paper with 3rd biggest KY impact is Cincinnati Enquirer which has extensive circulation in Northern KY and is traditionally & functionally Republican in orientation.

    Mitch McConnell is one of the great survivors of Kentucky politics, first elected to public office in 1977 as Judge Executive of Jefferson County (Louisville), re-elected in 1981, then elected to US Senate in 1984 versus an incumbent Dem.

    Mitch has never been Mr Popularity in Kentucky, largely because of his rather aloof personality. But he IS respected.

    His biggest problems THIS election year are his opposition to Obamacare (popular esp. in Eastern KY which is part of Appalachia), the belief that he does NOT use his national clout enough for Kentucky's benefit (quite unlike the late US Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia); and finally Trumpsky (who will again win the state but by reduced margin).

    Biggest pluses for Mitch are continued erosion of traditional Democratic vote in much of rural Kentucky, esp in Western KY (where many Dems had Confederate ancestors) and Eastern Ky (where labor esp United Mine Workers dominated the electorate from New Deal to end of 20th century).
    Driving through WV, it seems every road, bridge and public building is name "The Byrd ..."
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 14,742
    rcs1000 said:

    alex_ said:

    Alistair said:

    Hunter Biden story is going well



    And its resulted in such devestaiting material as revelation that Joe Biden texted Hunter saying "I miss you, I love you".

    50:50 chance he did it, or 50:50 chance the guy was a Russian spy?
    I don't think Rudy is entirely clear in his own head about that. The degeneration of Giuliani (from an admittedly lowish start) is one of the minor notes in the Trump symphony.

    “My guess is that George Soros is behind this counter-offensive… because he wants to create a socialist country,”
    Has George Soros ever shown any particular signs of socialism...
    Head of the Jewish capitalist, cultural marxist, commie cabal!
  • rcs1000 said:

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    It’s not.
    That’s rather the point.

    However, those who want to believe it will believe it with total credulousness. I mean, look at how they continue to unquestioningly follow Gupta.
    Fair enough, what is wrong with that report and what are the correct figures?
    It depends on who catches it, and how many people have it any point in time: if it's mostly people under the age of 65, and hospitals are not overloaded, then it probably is 0.25%.

    On the other hand, if it's a representative sample of the population, and there are (say) one in 30 people infected at any one time (i.e. two and bit million), then you might well end up with IFRs north of 2%.

    But here's the thing:

    These things are all theoretical anyway, because countries shut down just as hard when there are no restrictions as when there are many.

    Go to Nevada. Las Vegas is open. You can go and stay at the Bellagio or the Wynn or the Ritz Carlton (all Five Star hotels) for $120 a night. You can gamble and drink in bars and eat good food. And you can fly to Vegas for a fraction of the normal price.

    The Vegas occupancy rate is normally 89%.

    Yet it's a ghost town right now. People simply aren't going to Vegas (no matter how cheap it is) because they're scared of catching CV19. Irrespective of government diktat, behaviour is changed.

    See: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/encore-at-wynn-las-vegas-low-demand-operating-hours-changes
    Las Vegas has problem NOT just with folks being worried about catching something there (a perennial hazard) but also because people are NOT eager to jet about in airplanes.

    Here in WA the Indian casinos re-opened earlier than the Governor wanted them too (being sovereign entities they were NOT obliged to follow his health orders) but have no clue how much business they are getting compared to pre-COVID.

    My guess it is down substantially. And their patrons do NOT need to take a plane there and back.

    Reckon it is similar story in other states with local casino, riverboat, etc casino gambling.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For those following the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) debate, John Ioannidis new paper is up on WHO:

    https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

    The rate is 0.23% (with 0.05% for < 70)

    iirc Ferguson's model (still being used by SAGE as far as I know, and the basis for the Whitty graph of doom graph) is based on a IFR an order of magnitude higher.

    Hang on am I understanding this correctly?

    We're closing down the country for an illness that kills 0.23% of people it infects...is that really what the figures say?

    That can't be right.
    If CV19 just killed one in four hundred people (mostly older) and moved on, that would be a fair position to take.

    But that's not how it works.

    What happens is that somewhere between 1% and 5% of people (depending on the demographic) who catch it end up in hospital. With the right treatments, most of these people recover.

    But if two million people all got CV19 at once, then you'd end up with the health service being utterly swamped, and a large number of those people who went to hospital would end up dying.

    Which is why even the herd immunity bunch want us to find a sustainable number of infections, then implement measures to get R down to 1, and then allow it to burn through the population.

    Of course... given you still have to implement the measures required to bring R down to 1 in this scenario, and it might well take a couple of years to reach 60% of people having had Covid, and it means hospitals are swamped with CV19 patients for the duration, it does raise the question of why you don't simply implement the measures with a lower baseline level of Covid.
    Right, so the fatality rate must be lower than 1-5% as not everyone who goes to hospital with it would have died with no treatment. Let's say half would die and half survive as an estimate.

    So we're looking at a virus that kills around 0.5%-2.5% of those that it infects. And that is only if we are identifying everyone that catches it, it is probably lower in reality.

    That seems not so dissimilar to the flu numbers and if these numbers are accurate I think that closing down the country for this virus is a massive mistake.
    That's about 14x higher than flu numbers.
    Ionnadis concludes:

    "Most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection fatality rate may be brought even lower."
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 37,468
    @Foxy Interesting post of yours on the last thread, and to hear your experience of schooling in Georgia and appreciation of aspects of southern redneck culture. Also pleasing to see you describe yourself as a patriotic Brit.

    Bravo.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 7,446
    rcs1000 said:


    Go to Nevada. Las Vegas is open. You can go and stay at the Bellagio or the Wynn or the Ritz Carlton (all Five Star hotels) for $120 a night. You can gamble and drink in bars and eat good food. And you can fly to Vegas for a fraction of the normal price.

    The Vegas occupancy rate is normally 89%.

    Yet it's a ghost town right now. People simply aren't going to Vegas (no matter how cheap it is) because they're scared of catching CV19. Irrespective of government diktat, behaviour is changed.

    See: https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/encore-at-wynn-las-vegas-low-demand-operating-hours-changes

    No we can't. America's borders are closed to the British.

    As to why Americans aren't going to Vegas, that's a different question. Much of the weekend traffic comes from CA and from more conservative parts of the country - people come to Vegas to do what they can't do at home.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100
    kjh said:

    Trump has been slagging off various Republican senators in the last few days. Anyone know why?

    Seems risky re supreme court vote.

    One of them was caught on tape bad mouthing Trump.
  • TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    I’m still hoping (rather optimistically) for McConnell to get kicked out.

    One of Kentucky's largest newspapers endorses McConnell's challenger
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/521533-one-of-kentuckys-largest-newspapers-endorses-mcconnells-challenger

    ... The Lexington Herald-Leader, one of Kentucky’s largest newspapers, has endorsed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s Democratic challenger Amy McGrath for the state’s senate seat.

    The newspaper wrote in its endorsement that many people feel Kentucky’s senate race is “the most important contest in the country” next to the presidential election, “with the future of our democracy riding on the right choice.”

    “During his 36 years in office, McConnell has made it perfectly clear that his only passion is the pursuit of power, his own and that of the Republican Party,” the paper said. “For that reason alone, we would endorse his opponent.

    “Luckily for voters, McGrath, a former fighter pilot and public servant, would make an excellent senator who would actually put the needs and interests of Kentuckians above her own," it continued...

    Note that Lexington Herald-Leader (#2 in circulation, #1 is Louisville Courier-Journal) endorsed Amy McGrath for US House in 2018 (see won Lexington but lost rest of district). However, they endorsed her Democratic opponent Charles Booker in the 2020 primary. Further note they endorsed Mitch's 2014 Democratic rival Alison Grimes.

    Kentucky's largest newspaper, and one with a LONG reputation for journalism AND political influence, is the Louisville Courier-Journal, which is historically Democratic and still is (mostly).

    Both papers have extensive circulation across the Blue Grass State. Not absolutely sure, but reckon paper with 3rd biggest KY impact is Cincinnati Enquirer which has extensive circulation in Northern KY and is traditionally & functionally Republican in orientation.

    Mitch McConnell is one of the great survivors of Kentucky politics, first elected to public office in 1977 as Judge Executive of Jefferson County (Louisville), re-elected in 1981, then elected to US Senate in 1984 versus an incumbent Dem.

    Mitch has never been Mr Popularity in Kentucky, largely because of his rather aloof personality. But he IS respected.

    His biggest problems THIS election year are his opposition to Obamacare (popular esp. in Eastern KY which is part of Appalachia), the belief that he does NOT use his national clout enough for Kentucky's benefit (quite unlike the late US Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia); and finally Trumpsky (who will again win the state but by reduced margin).

    Biggest pluses for Mitch are continued erosion of traditional Democratic vote in much of rural Kentucky, esp in Western KY (where many Dems had Confederate ancestors) and Eastern Ky (where labor esp United Mine Workers dominated the electorate from New Deal to end of 20th century).
    Driving through WV, it seems every road, bridge and public building is name "The Byrd ..."
    At some stage you likely were cruising down the Robert C Byrd Highway (aka US 48)

    My personal vote for the coolest tribute to RCB is Robert C Byrd Greenbank Telescope; note the Senator played a role in securing federal funding for this major international scientific undertaking.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bank_Telescope

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_named_after_Robert_Byrd
Sign In or Register to comment.