Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Early voting in the second biggest state now at 43.7% of the 2016 total – and there’s still more tha

13

Comments

  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
  • I've never been there but the hatred for Frankfurt baffles me.

    Does it not have pubs to drink in, restaurants to eat in, parks to sit in, countryside to walk in ?

    Just as every city does ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    Because infections recorded today reflect people getting infected 10 to 12 days ago.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:
    I believe OGH demanded that all posts of parody twitter accounts must be labelled as such. Especially when as subtle as this.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    rcs1000 said:
    He said that? Then he is as evil as his PB portrayal.
    It's a joke. But I thought a pretty funny one.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    lockhimup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    lockhimup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, both the IBD/TIPP and USC Dornife tracking polls suggest a move towards Trump today. In both cases it's small, but that it is repeated in two tracking polls suggests it may be more than just random noise.

    That being said, Trump's time to pull this back is diminishing.

    My long held assumption is that Trump would pick up the bulk of undecideds, but that Biden would hold onto his vote share. If that's true, it still results in a 5-6 point lead for Biden on polling day. Given that (a) we shouldn't assume that any polling error will be in the same direction as last time, and (b) Trump needs to get the lead down to 2-3% to have a 50-50 chance of winning (per Nate Silver), this means it is still very much Joe Biden's race to lose.

    Why do you think Trump will pick up the undecideds?
    Three reasons:

    (1) Historically undecided break towards the incumbent
    (2) Saying "I don't know" may be code for "I know I shouldn't like him, but he's OK"
    (3) Undecided broke towards Trump in 2016
    Thanks.
    Picking brains on here because Biden looks unbelievable value - I'm desperate for (logical) reasons not to put a huge bet on!
    What do you think about the high "enthusiasm" level of Trumps vote? Isn't that what you'd expect if undecideds weren't breaking for him?
    Also, the final IBID/TIPP poll in 16 gave Trump 45, Clinton 43. Actual result 46,48. That suggests the undecideds broke 5-1 against Trump.
    ... or, more likely, the final poll IBD/TIPP was not accurate, or rather was only as accurate as these polls can ever be (and within it's MoE I believe).
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    Because infections recorded today reflect people getting infected 10 to 12 days ago.
    Then how do we know whether it's gone up or down since 10-12 days ago?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    Because reporting date is a meaningless figure until you delve into other factors (specimen date, numbers tested, percentage positives etc)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    I think it is the difference between reporting date and testing date that makes for the discrepancy. The Actuaries group reckons 1.3. Locally to me, it seems pretty flat.


    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Does anyone know why the government hasn't just imposed Tier 3 on Greater Manchester?

    What are they waiting for?
  • nico679 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I wonder who all the extra voters will be backing? I'm guessing Biden but pollsters will struggle if they use normal turnout weightings.

    At this rate I wonder if pre-election turnout might exceed 100% of last time by polling day?

    Of course all these votes are locked in now.

    They are not extra voters, they are mainly Democratic voters who voted on the day in 2016 who are voting early this time due to Covid, most Republican voters will still be voting on the day
    How do you know?
    There's a lot of data available in some states thanks to comparing to voter files, you can see how many are new voters.

    https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1317181627525640194

    Elections experts warn that while the vote totals over the first three days reflect enthusiasm, so far the rolls indicate few first-time voters.


    The Democrats are cannibalising their EV and ED votes, and not by the overwhelming margins they need.

    I wouldn't normally quote Democrat hacks but even Nate Silver realises this,

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1317478024745451520

    Can anyone explain Texas 43.2% of total votes counted 2016 on this map compared to the ballots requested of bugger all. Something wrong surely

    https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
    Because vote-by-mail in Texas is not big, the vast majority of the early vote there is in-person so no mail ballot request needed.
    Also only over 65s can have a no excuse mail in ballot . The Dems wanted that for all voters but the GOP of course blocked that. That means the mail in ballots are likely to be weighted disproportionately to older voters .
    Which is usual good for GOP but thanks to Trumpsky's brilliant handling of COVID not so much in 2020.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    Does anyone know why the government hasn't just imposed Tier 3 on Greater Manchester?

    What are they waiting for?

    For it to be politically acceptable. Red wall seats and all that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    No, that's the projected vote share you are looking at not the 538 polling average which is here

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
    The popular vote forecast as of tonight

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

    However given RCP got the popular vote more accurately than 538 in 2016 you can also look at their figures tonight which is 8%.

    IBID/TIPP tonight meanwhile has Biden's popular vote lead at 5%, 49.5% to 44.5%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

    The RCP average is showing 8.9% Biden lead, not 8%.
    That is 2 way, 4 way it is 8%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
    For betting purposes, it is worth remembering that Jordensen and Hawkins are not on the ballot in every State.

    This could be crucial in a few states. So, Hawkins (Green Party candidate) is on the ballot in the following swing states:

    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota

    But is not on the ballot in:

    Arizona
    Wisconsin
    New Hampshire
    Nevada

    And it is unclear yet whether he will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    HYUFD said:

    I wonder who all the extra voters will be backing? I'm guessing Biden but pollsters will struggle if they use normal turnout weightings.

    At this rate I wonder if pre-election turnout might exceed 100% of last time by polling day?

    Of course all these votes are locked in now.

    They are not extra voters, they are mainly Democratic voters who voted on the day in 2016 who are voting early this time due to Covid, most Republican voters will still be voting on the day
    How do you know?
    There's a lot of data available in some states thanks to comparing to voter files, you can see how many are new voters.

    https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1317181627525640194

    Elections experts warn that while the vote totals over the first three days reflect enthusiasm, so far the rolls indicate few first-time voters.


    The Democrats are cannibalising their EV and ED votes, and not by the overwhelming margins they need.

    I wouldn't normally quote Democrat hacks but even Nate Silver realises this,

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1317478024745451520

    Can anyone explain Texas 43.2% of total votes counted 2016 on this map compared to the ballots requested of bugger all. Something wrong surely

    https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
    Early vote. Also the article indicates that there are 10% new voters. And it doesn't state that the 90% voted in the last election, just any
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    I think it is the difference between reporting date and testing date that makes for the discrepancy. The Actuaries group reckons 1.3. Locally to me, it seems pretty flat.


    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
    That estimate is over three weeks old though.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    In 3 of those the batting team couldnt manage more than 5

    Kings xi were 50/1 after scoring 5-2 in their super over but went on to win in a 2nd go at it after their opponents only managed 5-1 in their effort
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    That's reporting day. You can't calculate R from reporting day numbers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    Because infections recorded today reflect people getting infected 10 to 12 days ago.
    Then how do we know whether it's gone up or down since 10-12 days ago?
    Given there are *more* restrictions in place now than 10 or 12 days ago, one would expect R to decline.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited October 2020
    For all the debate about polls I think 538's view that today Trump has a 12% chance of winning on 3 Nov is as good a guess as you can get.

    12% means Trump could well win and that % will increase if the poll averages show Biden's lead reducing.

    I highly recommend the latest 538 podcast on how their forecast works.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/how-does-early-voting-affect-the-forecast-and-other-listener-questions/
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    No, that's the projected vote share you are looking at not the 538 polling average which is here

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
    The popular vote forecast as of tonight

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

    However given RCP got the popular vote more accurately than 538 in 2016 you can also look at their figures tonight which is 8%.

    IBID/TIPP tonight meanwhile has Biden's popular vote lead at 5%, 49.5% to 44.5%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

    The RCP average is showing 8.9% Biden lead, not 8%.
    That is 2 way, 4 way it is 8%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
    For betting purposes, it is worth remembering that Jordensen and Hawkins are not on the ballot in every State.

    This could be crucial in a few states. So, Hawkins (Green Party candidate) is on the ballot in the following swing states:

    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota

    But is not on the ballot in:

    Arizona
    Wisconsin
    New Hampshire
    Nevada

    And it is unclear yet whether he will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
    That last sentence sums up the absurdity of American elections. Two weeks before the vote and they don’t event know who the candidates are.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    I think it is the difference between reporting date and testing date that makes for the discrepancy. The Actuaries group reckons 1.3. Locally to me, it seems pretty flat.


    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
    That line tracks pretty well to my calculation, it's just using less recent data.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    I think it is the difference between reporting date and testing date that makes for the discrepancy. The Actuaries group reckons 1.3. Locally to me, it seems pretty flat.


    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
    Surely there's at least a fortnight lag using hospital admissions to calculate R?
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    What's the most recent date in the Covid-19 data that we can realistically call basically complete?
    I see a lot of charts and tables where the last couple of days are clearly missing most of their data. Can I trust the figures from four days ago? Five? Ten?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    No, that's the projected vote share you are looking at not the 538 polling average which is here

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
    The popular vote forecast as of tonight

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

    However given RCP got the popular vote more accurately than 538 in 2016 you can also look at their figures tonight which is 8%.

    IBID/TIPP tonight meanwhile has Biden's popular vote lead at 5%, 49.5% to 44.5%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

    The RCP average is showing 8.9% Biden lead, not 8%.
    That is 2 way, 4 way it is 8%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
    For betting purposes, it is worth remembering that Jordensen and Hawkins are not on the ballot in every State.

    This could be crucial in a few states. So, Hawkins (Green Party candidate) is on the ballot in the following swing states:

    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota

    But is not on the ballot in:

    Arizona
    Wisconsin
    New Hampshire
    Nevada

    And it is unclear yet whether he will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
    That last sentence sums up the absurdity of American elections. Two weeks before the vote and they don’t event know who the candidates are.
    Was Hawkins on the 2.7m postal ballots sent out in PA?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Mail on Sunday: Covid mortality levels are still drastically lower now than in the spring. In the week ending April 17, 8,758 recorded deaths mentioned Covid as a possible factor on the death certificate. For the first week in October, the comparable figure was just 321.

    As we also now know, many of the deaths in March and April followed a severe mishandling of the epidemic in care homes, and had little or nothing to do with the lack, or the existence, of lockdown measures. In fact an examination of all the affected nations shows no obvious connection between the severity of the steps taken and the number of deaths suffered.

    The key problem of the episode from the start – that the danger from the virus itself had been overstated – continues unabated. Yet we are once again being accused of misbehaving by the simple action of living our lives. Now a rise in cases, which is largely attributable to the normal increase in respiratory disease at this time of year, is being used as the pretext for regional shutdowns or for a so-called ‘circuit-breaker’.

    The practical effects of these measures on Covid are sketchy at best. Their effects on human happiness, health, wellbeing and the economy are increasingly evident, deep, painful and lasting.

    Powerful voices argue for a more nuanced and less painful way of learning to live with the virus, as we rebuild our prosperity and our freedom and look forward to a future free of lockdowns, circuit-breakers and family separation.

    Boris Johnson has the capacity to see this and act on it. We urge him, with all our hearts, to do so now.
  • https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1317916253089136640

    So that breakthrough was all nonsense and the Tories lied again!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Does anyone know why the government hasn't just imposed Tier 3 on Greater Manchester?

    What are they waiting for?

    For it to be politically acceptable. Red wall seats and all that.
    Ah, following the science. Of course.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    I think it is the difference between reporting date and testing date that makes for the discrepancy. The Actuaries group reckons 1.3. Locally to me, it seems pretty flat.


    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
    Surely there's at least a fortnight lag using hospital admissions to calculate R?
    And the last datapoint there is the 6th of October, the latest reliable case data is the 13th and case data isn't as lagged vs current infections, it about a week vs 10-17 days for hospitalisation.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    I think it is the difference between reporting date and testing date that makes for the discrepancy. The Actuaries group reckons 1.3. Locally to me, it seems pretty flat.


    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
    That estimate is over three weeks old though.
    All measures of r are only visible via the retrospectoscope.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    What's the most recent date in the Covid-19 data that we can realistically call basically complete?
    I see a lot of charts and tables where the last couple of days are clearly missing most of their data. Can I trust the figures from four days ago? Five? Ten?

    5 day lag for testing and deaths nationally, hospitalisation data is up to date in England and Wales, runs a bit behind in Scotland and NI.
  • Given it takes 7-10 days between infection and hospitalisation....by the time the Brexit style negotiations over a Manchester lockdown are finally concluded it will have all been too late.

    Burnham needs to climb down or hope Johnson imposes tier 3, because Johnson is not going to capitulate on this and GM hospitals are at breaking point.
    Isn't this what the Nightingale hospitals are for ?

    There seems to be at least two weeks before hospital patients in the north-west reach the levels of April and much more than that for those requiring ventilators.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare?areaType=nhsregion&areaName=North West
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    Because infections recorded today reflect people getting infected 10 to 12 days ago.
    Then how do we know whether it's gone up or down since 10-12 days ago?
    Given there are *more* restrictions in place now than 10 or 12 days ago, one would expect R to decline.
    Our restrictions were eased. Under local rules meeting in gardens was banned, but under Tier 2 it is OK.
  • So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Foxy said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    I think it is the difference between reporting date and testing date that makes for the discrepancy. The Actuaries group reckons 1.3. Locally to me, it seems pretty flat.


    https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
    That estimate is over three weeks old though.
    All measures of r are only visible via the retrospectoscope.
    True but that calculation isn't using the latest data. I think hospitalisation data probably would give a more accurate picture than cases but it runs up to two weeks in arrears of infection date while case data is 5-7 days behind infection date which is why I picked that to calculate it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    No, that's the projected vote share you are looking at not the 538 polling average which is here

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
    The popular vote forecast as of tonight

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

    However given RCP got the popular vote more accurately than 538 in 2016 you can also look at their figures tonight which is 8%.

    IBID/TIPP tonight meanwhile has Biden's popular vote lead at 5%, 49.5% to 44.5%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

    The RCP average is showing 8.9% Biden lead, not 8%.
    That is 2 way, 4 way it is 8%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
    For betting purposes, it is worth remembering that Jordensen and Hawkins are not on the ballot in every State.

    This could be crucial in a few states. So, Hawkins (Green Party candidate) is on the ballot in the following swing states:

    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota

    But is not on the ballot in:

    Arizona
    Wisconsin
    New Hampshire
    Nevada

    And it is unclear yet whether he will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
    That last sentence sums up the absurdity of American elections. Two weeks before the vote and they don’t event know who the candidates are.
    Was Hawkins on the 2.7m postal ballots sent out in PA?
    It's hard to know.

    First he was on - September 10.
    Then he was ordered off - September 17.
    But the Green Party is appealing the decision.

    So, my guess is that he's not on currently. But might be on "on the day ballots" if he wins the appeal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    alex_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    alex_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    What effect do you believe the Comey intervention had on the Clinton vote? And do you foresee anything similar happening this time?
    Look at IBID/TIPP tonight, Biden 49.5% and Trump at 44.5%, others at 3.4%, so about 2.5% still undecided or shy Trumps, if they go to Trump it is Biden 49.5% and Trump 47%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/
    Yes,

    If that is correct, then it's 50-50 between Trump and Biden.

    However, if we compare that to the polling average, that would require that the pollsters were out by 6.4%. (I.e. 8.9% - the 2.5% required to get to a 50-50 chance of a Trump victory.)

    That would more than twice the largest ever aggregate polling error.
    True but while most of the polling average probably has Biden about right at around 50% they are likely underestimating the Trump vote again
    Based on... what? Trafalgar not being in line with the general picture? Even though they deliberately skew their figures to Trump.
    It was Trafalgar right in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016, not the general picture
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Given it takes 7-10 days between infection and hospitalisation....by the time the Brexit style negotiations over a Manchester lockdown are finally concluded it will have all been too late.

    Burnham needs to climb down or hope Johnson imposes tier 3, because Johnson is not going to capitulate on this and GM hospitals are at breaking point.
    Isn't this what the Nightingale hospitals are for ?

    There seems to be at least two weeks before hospital patients in the north-west reach the levels of April and much more than that for those requiring ventilators.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare?areaType=nhsregion&areaName=North West
    Nightingale hospitals need staff. The first step is cancellation of planned admissions.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-nhs-hospitals-nurses-doctors-operations-cancelled-b1041263.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    lockhimup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    lockhimup said:

    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, both the IBD/TIPP and USC Dornife tracking polls suggest a move towards Trump today. In both cases it's small, but that it is repeated in two tracking polls suggests it may be more than just random noise.

    That being said, Trump's time to pull this back is diminishing.

    My long held assumption is that Trump would pick up the bulk of undecideds, but that Biden would hold onto his vote share. If that's true, it still results in a 5-6 point lead for Biden on polling day. Given that (a) we shouldn't assume that any polling error will be in the same direction as last time, and (b) Trump needs to get the lead down to 2-3% to have a 50-50 chance of winning (per Nate Silver), this means it is still very much Joe Biden's race to lose.

    Why do you think Trump will pick up the undecideds?
    Three reasons:

    (1) Historically undecided break towards the incumbent
    (2) Saying "I don't know" may be code for "I know I shouldn't like him, but he's OK"
    (3) Undecided broke towards Trump in 2016
    Thanks.
    Picking brains on here because Biden looks unbelievable value - I'm desperate for (logical) reasons not to put a huge bet on!
    What do you think about the high "enthusiasm" level of Trumps vote? Isn't that what you'd expect if undecideds weren't breaking for him?
    Also, the final IBID/TIPP poll in 16 gave Trump 45, Clinton 43. Actual result 46,48. That suggests the undecideds broke 5-1 against Trump.
    Final IBID/TIPP 2 way poll was actually Clinton +1%, so only 1% off

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    No, that's the projected vote share you are looking at not the 538 polling average which is here

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
    The popular vote forecast as of tonight

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

    However given RCP got the popular vote more accurately than 538 in 2016 you can also look at their figures tonight which is 8%.

    IBID/TIPP tonight meanwhile has Biden's popular vote lead at 5%, 49.5% to 44.5%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

    The RCP average is showing 8.9% Biden lead, not 8%.
    That is 2 way, 4 way it is 8%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
    For betting purposes, it is worth remembering that Jordensen and Hawkins are not on the ballot in every State.

    This could be crucial in a few states. So, Hawkins (Green Party candidate) is on the ballot in the following swing states:

    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota

    But is not on the ballot in:

    Arizona
    Wisconsin
    New Hampshire
    Nevada

    And it is unclear yet whether he will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
    That last sentence sums up the absurdity of American elections. Two weeks before the vote and they don’t event know who the candidates are.
    Was Hawkins on the 2.7m postal ballots sent out in PA?
    It's hard to know.

    First he was on - September 10.
    Then he was ordered off - September 17.
    But the Green Party is appealing the decision.

    So, my guess is that he's not on currently. But might be on "on the day ballots" if he wins the appeal.
    Really, you have to wonder, why do the Greens bother? State elections and federal House and Senate elections may be worth the effort, but POTUS? Surely a complete waste of their resources.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    No, that's the projected vote share you are looking at not the 538 polling average which is here

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
    The popular vote forecast as of tonight

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

    However given RCP got the popular vote more accurately than 538 in 2016 you can also look at their figures tonight which is 8%.

    IBID/TIPP tonight meanwhile has Biden's popular vote lead at 5%, 49.5% to 44.5%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

    The RCP average is showing 8.9% Biden lead, not 8%.
    That is 2 way, 4 way it is 8%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
    For betting purposes, it is worth remembering that Jordensen and Hawkins are not on the ballot in every State.

    This could be crucial in a few states. So, Hawkins (Green Party candidate) is on the ballot in the following swing states:

    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota

    But is not on the ballot in:

    Arizona
    Wisconsin
    New Hampshire
    Nevada

    And it is unclear yet whether he will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
    Is that true re: Pennsylvania? Where state supreme court ruled Greens had NOT met requirements of state law.

    Doubt a federal court would intervene, given that ballot access even for federal & presidential elections is STATE jurisdiction historically & current.

    Plus checked one PA county's sample ballot, and the Greenie is NOT on it. Although supporter can vote for him as a write-in.

    http://www.huntingdoncounty.net/Dept/Commissioners/Elections/LatestElection/Sample Ballots_General 2020.pdf
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    Does anyone know why the government hasn't just imposed Tier 3 on Greater Manchester?

    What are they waiting for?

    Because it is Burnham who is in charge of implementing it. Enforcement etc. And he presumably is the local police commissioner.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:
    He said that? Then he is as evil as his PB portrayal.
    It's a joke. But I thought a pretty funny one.
    I was trying out a little irony- and clearly failed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    New Hugh Lawrie political drama on BBC1 now, Roadkill
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    Because infections recorded today reflect people getting infected 10 to 12 days ago.
    Then how do we know whether it's gone up or down since 10-12 days ago?
    Given there are *more* restrictions in place now than 10 or 12 days ago, one would expect R to decline.
    I suppose that depends on:
    1. Adherence
    2. Efficacy with adherence
    3. Whether the lockdowns are covering areas with the bulk of cases

    I have this nagging feeling these local lockdowns are poorly adhered to (witness an earlier discussion about solidarity), that the restrictions are not stopping as many harmful interactions as the authorities would like, AND that the tiered system is dowsing the bits of forest that have already burned instead of getting ahead of the flames.

    I hope I'm wrong, but I can't shake the feeling that this is still spreading fast right now, which is why I'm asking for the numbers that show it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited October 2020
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    R is quite clearly falling - up til 4 days ago, it was on a steady downward trajectory -

    image

    and

    image

  • alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    But only half as much testing as Belgium it seems.
  • rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    At this point in 2016 Clinton had an average national lead of 7 points , Biden has 10 points . Also in 2016 the election was on the 8th November . So Trump had 3 weeks to close the gap , the 2020 election is now 16 days away . And then of course there was the Comey intervention .

    If you also factor in at that point 5 million votes had been cast , today it’s about to hit 28 million . A disproportionate amount of those are in key swing states .

    As of tonight Biden's average national lead is now 8% and his battleground state lead is 4.3%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/
    Nico is compring 538 numbers with 538 numbers.
    As of tonight Biden leads by 8.4% with 538, 53.6% to 45.2% for Trump so about 1.4% higher than Hillary led the popular vote in in 2016 then at this stage

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
    No, that's the projected vote share you are looking at not the 538 polling average which is here

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
    The popular vote forecast as of tonight

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

    However given RCP got the popular vote more accurately than 538 in 2016 you can also look at their figures tonight which is 8%.

    IBID/TIPP tonight meanwhile has Biden's popular vote lead at 5%, 49.5% to 44.5%

    https://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/

    The RCP average is showing 8.9% Biden lead, not 8%.
    That is 2 way, 4 way it is 8%

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_jorgensen_vs_hawkins-7225.html
    For betting purposes, it is worth remembering that Jordensen and Hawkins are not on the ballot in every State.

    This could be crucial in a few states. So, Hawkins (Green Party candidate) is on the ballot in the following swing states:

    Iowa
    Michigan
    Minnesota

    But is not on the ballot in:

    Arizona
    Wisconsin
    New Hampshire
    Nevada

    And it is unclear yet whether he will be on the ballot in Pennsylvania.
    That last sentence sums up the absurdity of American elections. Two weeks before the vote and they don’t event know who the candidates are.
    Was Hawkins on the 2.7m postal ballots sent out in PA?
    Believe answer is no, based on sample ballots as posted on PA county election web sites.

    Here is another one, for Erie County, City of Erie, 1st Ward, 1st District
    https://eriecountypa.gov/voting/2020-General-Election-Sample-Ballots/01101 - ERIE FIRST WARD 1ST DISTRICT.pdf
  • MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    There are some hopeful signs on cases by specimen date.

    But there have dashed hopes before.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    What's the most recent date in the Covid-19 data that we can realistically call basically complete?
    I see a lot of charts and tables where the last couple of days are clearly missing most of their data. Can I trust the figures from four days ago? Five? Ten?

    Depends what you are looking at. For a single day's specimen date you are basically looking at a week. But clearly if you are looking at cases over eg. 7 days you can perhaps focus on 3-4 days earlier.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    MaxPB said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    That's reporting day. You can't calculate R from reporting day numbers.
    This is specimen date reporting for cases -

    image

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    alex_ said:

    Does anyone know why the government hasn't just imposed Tier 3 on Greater Manchester?

    What are they waiting for?

    Because it is Burnham who is in charge of implementing it. Enforcement etc. And he presumably is the local police commissioner.

    And also, despite the whole elective-dictatorship thing - perhaps Boris doesn't want to be the war lord of Britain?

    After all, under the Civil Contingencies act, he could have shut down all devolved government at every level - declared a nation emergency etc. Pretty much *anything*

    Yet didn't.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    R is quite clearly falling - up til 4 days ago, it was on a steady downward trajectory -

    image

    and

    image

    Yes the current trend is definitely a downwards trend but I think Wednesday will tell the full picture. I worry that testing lag and hidden infections are painting a more cheery story than is actually true. The experience of France and Belgium is what worries me.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Makes for a more competitive league this time round. Bit less talk of the big 3 or 4 that we had in the first wave.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    There are some hopeful signs on cases by specimen date.

    But there have dashed hopes before.
    If nothing else will persuade the scientists of the need for more testing, it is that it helps the 'lockdown' cause when numbers go up.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,282
    HYUFD said:

    New Hugh Lawrie political drama on BBC1 now, Roadkill

    Written by David Hare.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    .

    IanB2 said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.

    In Italy’s case at least, the tests are being targetted a lot more sensibly.
    Yes and no.

    People make a song and dance about the best way of rationing tests but the best thing to do, as we have known all year, is to Test, Test, Test.

    If you are rationing your tests to only those whom you most suspect need them you may catch a better proportion from your limited testing quantity but you will miss a lot of people from asymptomatic spread.

    If you have much more testing available and open it to more of the 'worried' then even if the vast majority of those are the 'worried well' the minority who were unwell that you caught break the chains of transmission there ... Plus lead you to potential new clusters to investigate that you didn't know about.
    The golden rule is you have to go and find it, not wait for it to come to you.
    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1317916574381125637
  • WA STATE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT
    in order as printed on the ballot

    Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris
    Democratic Party

    Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence
    Republican Party

    Jo Jorgensen and Jeremy "Spike" Cohen
    Libertarian Party

    Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker
    Green Party

    Gloria La Riva and Sunil Freeman
    Socialism and Liberation Party

    Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm M. Jarrett
    Socialist Workers Party

    Write-In





  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Makes for a more competitive league this time round. Bit less talk of the big 3 or 4 that we had in the first wave.
    Trumpland is still way out in front mind.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Nigelb said:

    .

    IanB2 said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.

    In Italy’s case at least, the tests are being targetted a lot more sensibly.
    Yes and no.

    People make a song and dance about the best way of rationing tests but the best thing to do, as we have known all year, is to Test, Test, Test.

    If you are rationing your tests to only those whom you most suspect need them you may catch a better proportion from your limited testing quantity but you will miss a lot of people from asymptomatic spread.

    If you have much more testing available and open it to more of the 'worried' then even if the vast majority of those are the 'worried well' the minority who were unwell that you caught break the chains of transmission there ... Plus lead you to potential new clusters to investigate that you didn't know about.
    The golden rule is you have to go and find it, not wait for it to come to you.
    https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1317916574381125637
    There's a few countries only falling below the radar here because of how small they are. One can see why they're worried.

    Of course some of it is psychological as well. In the UK we were so badly hit first time, that we probably have a higher threshold for what we see as "worrying" numbers.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited October 2020
    .
    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.

    And the lack of efforts at mitigation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Dakota
    The state has not utilized mitigation strategies such as stay-at-home orders or mandating face masks in public spaces, with Governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem respectively citing a desire to preserve residents' personal freedoms, and disputing studies demonstrating their efficacy...

    (There was, of course, Mt Rushmore in June.)
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    https://twitter.com/agearan/status/1317662436489560066
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.
    Oh god, they didn't allow Sturgis did they?
  • MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    Hoping you are!
  • twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1317924931997470725

    Good news.

    By March...then probably a 9 months to get everybody done... Christmas 2021 is going to be a cracker.
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998

    MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    R is quite clearly falling - up til 4 days ago, it was on a steady downward trajectory -

    image

    and

    image

    What's does this graph mean? For example, the figures for the 14th October, let's say one region has an R of exactly 1.00.

    As I understand it, R is the number of people infected by each infected person across the course of their illness. So does R=1.00 for the 14th October mean
    1. The average person who was INFECTIOUS on 14/10 could be expected to transmit it to one other?
    2. The average person who BECAME INFECTED on 14/10 will be expected to transmit it to one other?
    3. The average person who CEASED BEING INFECTIOUS on 14/10 has transmitted it to one other?
    4. Something else?
  • Alistair said:

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    https://twitter.com/agearan/status/1317662436489560066
    Re: last nights sidebar re: Hunter S. Thompson, note that HST's first book, which justly earned him fame if not fortune, was "Hells Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga".
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.
    Sturgis kindova proxy for a Trump rally I'd imagine..
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.
    Oh god, they didn't allow Sturgis did they?
    Estimated attendance in 2020 - 365,979
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837

    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    The national R is still going down ever so slightly which is good news. I think the R in England is actually below 1 now which is a positive development and this is with just the local lockdown measures rather than the tier system which introduced more restrictions to more parts of England.

    New infections published today up 31% on a week ago.
    I'm unclear why you think that's compatible with R being below 1. To me it seems to contradict your assertion.
    Because infections recorded today reflect people getting infected 10 to 12 days ago.
    Then how do we know whether it's gone up or down since 10-12 days ago?
    Given there are *more* restrictions in place now than 10 or 12 days ago, one would expect R to decline.
    Our restrictions were eased. Under local rules meeting in gardens was banned, but under Tier 2 it is OK.
    Ours too. I believe underneath all the sound and fury, Greater Manchester has been slightly relaxed also. That's a large population of the most infected bits being eased.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.
    Oh god, they didn't allow Sturgis did they?
    Estimated attendance in 2020 - 365,979
    The history books are going to be littered with these kind of events with those reading the texts thinking were there people intellectually subnormal.

    How many people attended the rallies today in France. A terrible incident and understand people desire to attend a rally, but France COVID cases are sky rocketing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    There was the bikers rally.

    https://youtu.be/8wOZuI-xd1A
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    R is quite clearly falling - up til 4 days ago, it was on a steady downward trajectory -

    image

    and

    image

    What's does this graph mean? For example, the figures for the 14th October, let's say one region has an R of exactly 1.00.

    As I understand it, R is the number of people infected by each infected person across the course of their illness. So does R=1.00 for the 14th October mean
    1. The average person who was INFECTIOUS on 14/10 could be expected to transmit it to one other?
    2. The average person who BECAME INFECTED on 14/10 will be expected to transmit it to one other?
    3. The average person who CEASED BEING INFECTIOUS on 14/10 has transmitted it to one other?
    4. Something else?
    It's easier to work in tens, but basically at R=1 if 10 people get the virus they will collectively pass it on to 10 other people.

    The R is calculated as a function of the viral growth rate, incubation period and infectiousness during the incubation period. With no non-pharmaceutical interventions the R of COVID is around 4.5 for symptomatic people and around 1.5 for asymptomatic people.

    The way nations have sought to reduce the R is by introducing NPIs like mask wearing and social distancing. This brings the R of asymptomatic people to well below 1 and reduces the likelihood of susperspreader events occurring.
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.

    And the lack of efforts at mitigation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Dakota
    The state has not utilized mitigation strategies such as stay-at-home orders or mandating face masks in public spaces, with Governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem respectively citing a desire to preserve residents' personal freedoms, and disputing studies demonstrating their efficacy...

    (There was, of course, Mt Rushmore in June.)
    Perhaps also harvest activity, when farmers hire extra help such as college kinds and seasonal workers.

    Other factors (but operating from the start) are concentration of meat packing and other ag processing, oil & gas boom and Indian reservations.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    kinabalu said:

    OT Roadkill -- new politics drama BBC1 9pm tonight

    Celebrating his win in a newspaper libel case, cabinet minister Peter Laurence is summoned to Downing Street to see PM Dawn Ellison, who reveals she is looking to promote him to an office of state. However, he is soon bought back down to earth with a bump when his special adviser Duncan Knock reveals an inmate in a women's prison is claiming to have a secret about his past that could affect his future.

    Thriller by David Hare, starring Hugh Laurie and Helen McCrory.

    https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/mrg9jq/roadkill--series-1-episode-1/

    Oh yes. In the bag. Thanks for flagging. Who needs atomized globalist Netflix? Not us.
    It's just the sort of good drama (I hope) that the BBC should be doing much more of.

    I expect it to have a leftist "Tories are evil" tilt - luvvie screenwriters almost always struggle to get Conservatives right, or don't want to - but I'll still be watching enthusiastically.
    God Almighty! Why can’t its producers get the legal aspects right? It’s not hard. Spoils the credibility for me.

    I know, I know, I’m being a pedant, should get a life etc etc.....

    Still, for a huge fee, I am available to act as the legal consultant to aspiring dramatists......
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.
    Oh god, they didn't allow Sturgis did they?
    Estimated attendance in 2020 - 365,979
    Just a rough estimate, then?
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.

    And the lack of efforts at mitigation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Dakota
    The state has not utilized mitigation strategies such as stay-at-home orders or mandating face masks in public spaces, with Governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem respectively citing a desire to preserve residents' personal freedoms, and disputing studies demonstrating their efficacy...

    (There was, of course, Mt Rushmore in June.)
    Perhaps also harvest activity, when farmers hire extra help such as college kinds and seasonal workers.

    Other factors (but operating from the start) are concentration of meat packing and other ag processing, oil & gas boom and Indian reservations.
    Kristi Noem has been mentioned a lot as a possible future presidential candidate.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    If it's never too early what was wrong with January?
    Treacherous snowflake Lefty.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    dixiedean said:

    If it's never too early what was wrong with January?
    Treacherous snowflake Lefty.
    He took it off?
  • Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Hugh Lawrie political drama on BBC1 now, Roadkill

    Written by David Hare.
    I'm not impressed so far but perhaps it suffers as the first episode from having to belt through a lot of exposition.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    OT Roadkill -- new politics drama BBC1 9pm tonight

    Celebrating his win in a newspaper libel case, cabinet minister Peter Laurence is summoned to Downing Street to see PM Dawn Ellison, who reveals she is looking to promote him to an office of state. However, he is soon bought back down to earth with a bump when his special adviser Duncan Knock reveals an inmate in a women's prison is claiming to have a secret about his past that could affect his future.

    Thriller by David Hare, starring Hugh Laurie and Helen McCrory.

    https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/mrg9jq/roadkill--series-1-episode-1/

    Oh yes. In the bag. Thanks for flagging. Who needs atomized globalist Netflix? Not us.
    It's just the sort of good drama (I hope) that the BBC should be doing much more of.

    I expect it to have a leftist "Tories are evil" tilt - luvvie screenwriters almost always struggle to get Conservatives right, or don't want to - but I'll still be watching enthusiastically.
    God Almighty! Why can’t its producers get the legal aspects right? It’s not hard. Spoils the credibility for me.

    I know, I know, I’m being a pedant, should get a life etc etc.....

    Still, for a huge fee, I am available to act as the legal consultant to aspiring dramatists......
    For similar reasons I cannot abide medical dramas.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Take out the purple Asian countries, where there is an array of other factors in play, and there really isn’t any significant correlation there at all.
  • Anybody told them there is a global pandemic....

    https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1317927985958236160?s=19
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    MaxPB said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    MaxPB said:

    So when will we know whether @MaxPB's hypothesis is correct? I hope he is

    In a few days, I think by Wednesday we'll have a pretty clear picture of whether the R is falling. I also hope I'm right.
    R is quite clearly falling - up til 4 days ago, it was on a steady downward trajectory -

    image

    and

    image

    What's does this graph mean? For example, the figures for the 14th October, let's say one region has an R of exactly 1.00.

    As I understand it, R is the number of people infected by each infected person across the course of their illness. So does R=1.00 for the 14th October mean
    1. The average person who was INFECTIOUS on 14/10 could be expected to transmit it to one other?
    2. The average person who BECAME INFECTED on 14/10 will be expected to transmit it to one other?
    3. The average person who CEASED BEING INFECTIOUS on 14/10 has transmitted it to one other?
    4. Something else?
    It's easier to work in tens, but basically at R=1 if 10 people get the virus they will collectively pass it on to 10 other people.

    The R is calculated as a function of the viral growth rate, incubation period and infectiousness during the incubation period. With no non-pharmaceutical interventions the R of COVID is around 4.5 for symptomatic people and around 1.5 for asymptomatic people.

    The way nations have sought to reduce the R is by introducing NPIs like mask wearing and social distancing. This brings the R of asymptomatic people to well below 1 and reduces the likelihood of susperspreader events occurring.
    Thanks, but this answered a slightly different question to the one I asked. I think I understand what R means, and the ways in which is can be affected. My question was what does the graph mean. If, say, a random person in an urban area, let's say Epping Forest, becomes infectious on 9th October, ceases to be infectious on 20th October, and during that time infects twenty people. Have they brought up the R number for the 9th October, the 18th October, for each of the days they infected someone, or what? Do they bring the 14th October R number up?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited October 2020
    dixiedean said:

    If it's never too early what was wrong with January?
    Treacherous snowflake Lefty.
    Wonder if he paid for it, or just took out last year's? Amazing how many people don't realise the primary purpose is to raise money not to visibly demonstrate support.
  • Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Hugh Lawrie political drama on BBC1 now, Roadkill

    Written by David Hare.
    I'm not impressed so far but perhaps it suffers as the first episode from having to belt through a lot of exposition.
    Recent big BBC dramas have suffered the other way...the first 2-3 episodes promising, then rapidly downhill e.g. McMafia.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Alistair said:

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    https://twitter.com/agearan/status/1317662436489560066
    Re: last nights sidebar re: Hunter S. Thompson, note that HST's first book, which justly earned him fame if not fortune, was "Hells Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga".
    Just started rereading ‘Campaign Trail.
    He combines snark, vituperation, observation, and genuine feeling in a manner unmatched since.
    The story of his sitting in the back of Nixon’s car in ‘68, talking football for two hours, is rather strange and wonderful.

    Would have been great on Twitter. :smile:
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited October 2020
    Epping Forest on ITV now!

    Looks a bit rural ;)
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    IanB2 said:

    Take out the purple Asian countries, where there is an array of other factors in play, and there really isn’t any significant correlation there at all.
    Every country has arrays of different factors. Can you justify which factors you think should lead to a country being excluded from an analysis?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited October 2020
    ..
  • Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    OT Roadkill -- new politics drama BBC1 9pm tonight

    Celebrating his win in a newspaper libel case, cabinet minister Peter Laurence is summoned to Downing Street to see PM Dawn Ellison, who reveals she is looking to promote him to an office of state. However, he is soon bought back down to earth with a bump when his special adviser Duncan Knock reveals an inmate in a women's prison is claiming to have a secret about his past that could affect his future.

    Thriller by David Hare, starring Hugh Laurie and Helen McCrory.

    https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/mrg9jq/roadkill--series-1-episode-1/

    Oh yes. In the bag. Thanks for flagging. Who needs atomized globalist Netflix? Not us.
    It's just the sort of good drama (I hope) that the BBC should be doing much more of.

    I expect it to have a leftist "Tories are evil" tilt - luvvie screenwriters almost always struggle to get Conservatives right, or don't want to - but I'll still be watching enthusiastically.
    God Almighty! Why can’t its producers get the legal aspects right? It’s not hard. Spoils the credibility for me.

    I know, I know, I’m being a pedant, should get a life etc etc.....

    Still, for a huge fee, I am available to act as the legal consultant to aspiring dramatists......
    For similar reasons I cannot abide medical dramas.
    Don't get me started on how Eastenders portray local council elections.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    OT Roadkill -- new politics drama BBC1 9pm tonight

    Celebrating his win in a newspaper libel case, cabinet minister Peter Laurence is summoned to Downing Street to see PM Dawn Ellison, who reveals she is looking to promote him to an office of state. However, he is soon bought back down to earth with a bump when his special adviser Duncan Knock reveals an inmate in a women's prison is claiming to have a secret about his past that could affect his future.

    Thriller by David Hare, starring Hugh Laurie and Helen McCrory.

    https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/mrg9jq/roadkill--series-1-episode-1/

    Oh yes. In the bag. Thanks for flagging. Who needs atomized globalist Netflix? Not us.
    It's just the sort of good drama (I hope) that the BBC should be doing much more of.

    I expect it to have a leftist "Tories are evil" tilt - luvvie screenwriters almost always struggle to get Conservatives right, or don't want to - but I'll still be watching enthusiastically.
    God Almighty! Why can’t its producers get the legal aspects right? It’s not hard. Spoils the credibility for me.

    I know, I know, I’m being a pedant, should get a life etc etc.....

    Still, for a huge fee, I am available to act as the legal consultant to aspiring dramatists......
    For similar reasons I cannot abide medical dramas.
    Not even Bodies ?
    One of Mercurio’s most entertaining.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Nigelb said:

    .

    alex_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If we're comparing new cases Sunday by Sunday then:

    France
    11/10/20 16,101
    18/10 20 29,837

    Italy
    11/10/20 5,456
    18/10/20 11,705

    Poland
    11/10/20 4,178
    18/10/20 8,536

    are all looking worrying.

    All three doing significantly less testing than the UK.


    Honourable mention to Belgium pretending to be a country of five times its actual size.
    The Netherlands are almost as bad.
    Not quite. Even they are getting on for 1.7 times the size of Belgium with fewer cases.
    Czech Republic is giving Belgium a run for their money over the last few days :-(
    Along with North and South Dakota...

    https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
    Trump had any rallies there?
    I suspect the biker event might have more to do with it.

    And the lack of efforts at mitigation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_South_Dakota
    The state has not utilized mitigation strategies such as stay-at-home orders or mandating face masks in public spaces, with Governor of South Dakota Kristi Noem respectively citing a desire to preserve residents' personal freedoms, and disputing studies demonstrating their efficacy...

    (There was, of course, Mt Rushmore in June.)
    Perhaps also harvest activity, when farmers hire extra help such as college kinds and seasonal workers.

    Other factors (but operating from the start) are concentration of meat packing and other ag processing, oil & gas boom and Indian reservations.
    There was a big meat plant outbreak early in the year.
This discussion has been closed.