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.
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).
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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%
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%
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
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.
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.
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?
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%
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%
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
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%
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
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%
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
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.
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
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%
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
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.
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%
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
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.
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.
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%
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
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.
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.
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*
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 -
and
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 -
and
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?
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".
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.
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.
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 -
and
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.
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.
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 -
and
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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 ?
https://twitter.com/COVID19actuary/status/1317488856044797960?s=19
What are they waiting for?
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.
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
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/
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?
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.
So that breakthrough was all nonsense and the Tories lied again!
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
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.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-nhs-hospitals-nurses-doctors-operations-cancelled-b1041263.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
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
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.
and
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
But there have dashed hopes before.
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.
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
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1317906618944614400
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.
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.)
Good news.
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?
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.
https://twitter.com/AndrewRosindell/status/1317402276085071872?s=20
https://youtu.be/8wOZuI-xd1A
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.
Other factors (but operating from the start) are concentration of meat packing and other ag processing, oil & gas boom and Indian reservations.
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......
Treacherous snowflake Lefty.
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1317927985958236160?s=19
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.
Looks a bit rural
One of Mercurio’s most entertaining.