Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Why the early results on the night might be deceptive – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,007
edited October 2020 in General
imageWhy the early results on the night might be deceptive – politicalbetting.com

A week to go and perhaps a good moment to pass on a observation about how information might come out on election night because of the different ways that each state will out count.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    First.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,378
    "The best Biden prices might come as the initial numbers from his three key targets show Trump doing well."

    Unless Texas or Florida flip.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    edited October 2020


    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,814
    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%.

    Using the Bayes theorem and using the measured positivity as a reasonable prior for the prevalence in the sample, and then iterating by taking the calculated true positives, dividing them by the number of samples for a calculated prevalence to improve the prior, and iterating 30 times until the prevalence in was equal to the prevalence out to within less than a thousandth of a percentage point.

    We get this:


    It's quite hard to present enough information in this sort of range, but:

    - The dark gold/brown columns are the measured cases (the reported cases from testing)
    - The black columns are the expected false positives
    - The green columns are the expected false negatives
    - The red columns are the net error (the amount by which the measured and true cases differ - take away the false positives (people without covid who were incorrectly reported as having it) and add the false negatives (people with covid who were tested and incorrectly reported as being clear)
    - The see-through columns are the calculated true cases, when false positives and negatives are taken into account.

    Conclusions:
    - When the virus is at very low levels, we'll see up to a few hundred extra cases per day incorrectly reported (if the false positive rate is about as high as is reasonably plausible)
    - When it starts to increase, the false positives and false negatives balance out
    - When it gets to a reasonably high spread (ie the start of September), the false negatives start to outweight the false positives, and we end up underreporting cases
    - The false negatives will be currently outweighing false positives to the tune of a few thousand cases

    One further worrying conclusion: false positives and false negatives mean that the rate of true cases has been increasing faster than reported cases (I doubt that Toby and co meant for this to be the case):

  • Options
    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    edited October 2020
    Disparity between the Met's version of events and Sir Keir's

    POLICE VERSION

    "A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'Police were alerted by LAS at around 12.20hrs on Sunday 25 October to a report of a road traffic collision between a cyclist and car in Grafton Road, NW5.

    'The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

    'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

    'The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station"

    & SIR KEIR'S VERSION

    "A spokesperson for Sir Keir said that the Labour leader was involved in a minor road traffic accident and spoke to a police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and others involved.

    Sir Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived then reported the incident to a police station, and has since been in touch with the other person involved, the spokesperson added."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882229/Police-launch-investigation-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-Starmer-involved-road-accident.html



  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    I don't believe there is any issue over exchange of person details. Just some confusion over when he exactly left the scene.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,647
    edited October 2020
    isam said:

    Disparity between the Met's version of events and Sir Keir's

    POLICE VERSION

    "A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'Police were alerted by LAS at around 12.20hrs on Sunday 25 October to a report of a road traffic collision between a cyclist and car in Grafton Road, NW5.

    'The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

    'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

    'The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station"

    & SIR KEIR'S VERSION

    "A spokesperson for Sir Keir said that the Labour leader was involved in a minor road traffic accident and spoke to a police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and others involved.

    Sir Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived then reported the incident to a police station, and has since been in touch with the other person involved, the spokesperson added."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882229/Police-launch-investigation-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-Starmer-involved-road-accident.html



    If you dont assume anything around the timings all the above can be true and consistent.

    Shame no Keir exit date market on betfair!
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    From what I have read he did stop and exchange details .
    So what are you going on about ?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    edited October 2020

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    He did exchange details with the injured party though, just left before the breathalysers arrived!

    I can't believe he wouldn't have acted appropriately to be honest. Quite possible he contacted the police station as claimed, and they were contacting him at the same time
  • Options
    Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    I see in the latest IBD poll its down to 4% again in the head to head, was up to 7 i think the other day, seems to yoyo a bit, but as its daily updating i guess depends on the 200 they poll on any given day.
    https://www.investors.com/news/biden-vs-trump-poll-joe-biden-lead-shrinks-donald-trump-tops-2016-vote-share-ibd-tipp-presidential-poll/
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020
    isam said:

    Disparity between the Met's version of events and Sir Keir's

    POLICE VERSION

    "A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'Police were alerted by LAS at around 12.20hrs on Sunday 25 October to a report of a road traffic collision between a cyclist and car in Grafton Road, NW5.

    'The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

    'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

    'The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station"

    & SIR KEIR'S VERSION

    "A spokesperson for Sir Keir said that the Labour leader was involved in a minor road traffic accident and spoke to a police officer WHO attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and others involved.

    Sir Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived then reported the incident to a police station, and has since been in touch with the other person involved, the spokesperson added."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882229/Police-launch-investigation-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-Starmer-involved-road-accident.html


    The bolded segment is a very lawyerly statement. Most people will read that and envision meaning speaking to the plod as they arrived at the scene, however that doesn't actually have to mean that. Furthermore, most normal people would say that they spoke to a police officer AT the scene, if that is what they did.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,226
    isam said:

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    He did exchange details with the injured party though, just left before the breathalysers arrived!

    I can't believe he wouldn't have acted appropriately to be honest. Quite possible he contacted the police station as claimed, and they were contacting him at the same time
    And with a BTP officer, just not with the Met.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    edited October 2020

    isam said:

    Disparity between the Met's version of events and Sir Keir's

    POLICE VERSION

    "A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'Police were alerted by LAS at around 12.20hrs on Sunday 25 October to a report of a road traffic collision between a cyclist and car in Grafton Road, NW5.

    'The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

    'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

    'The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station"

    & SIR KEIR'S VERSION

    "A spokesperson for Sir Keir said that the Labour leader was involved in a minor road traffic accident and spoke to a police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and others involved.

    Sir Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived then reported the incident to a police station, and has since been in touch with the other person involved, the spokesperson added."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882229/Police-launch-investigation-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-Starmer-involved-road-accident.html



    If you dont assume anything around the timings all the above can be true and consistent.

    Shame no Keir exit date market on betfair!
    Yes, true. And, I believe, the most likely explanation

    I did look to lay him for next PM! 3.95, I didnt bother
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924
    Nigelb said:

    "The best Biden prices might come as the initial numbers from his three key targets show Trump doing well."

    Unless Texas or Florida flip.

    Once we have seen a dozen or two counties from 3 or 4 states get to 100% counted, we'll be reasonably sure whether we're looking at a clear result or a multi day process.

    Indeed, the greatest betting opportunities (Brexit, US Presidential election 2016) come when the market is slow to respond to new evidence because of preconceived ideas about the likely result.
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Disparity between the Met's version of events and Sir Keir's

    POLICE VERSION

    "A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'Police were alerted by LAS at around 12.20hrs on Sunday 25 October to a report of a road traffic collision between a cyclist and car in Grafton Road, NW5.

    'The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

    'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

    'The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station"

    & SIR KEIR'S VERSION

    "A spokesperson for Sir Keir said that the Labour leader was involved in a minor road traffic accident and spoke to a police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and others involved.

    Sir Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived then reported the incident to a police station, and has since been in touch with the other person involved, the spokesperson added."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882229/Police-launch-investigation-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-Starmer-involved-road-accident.html



    If you dont assume anything around the timings all the above can be true and consistent.

    Shame no Keir exit date market on betfair!
    Yes, true. And I believe the most likely explanation

    I did look to lay him for next PM! 3.95, I didnt bother
    I did, its a lay anyway, if the Tories are looking likely to lose the election they are odds on to replace Johnson before then, plus you have Johnson health/family/laziness/earnings resignation in your favour as well as Starmer being replaced or jacking it in.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Disparity between the Met's version of events and Sir Keir's

    POLICE VERSION

    "A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'Police were alerted by LAS at around 12.20hrs on Sunday 25 October to a report of a road traffic collision between a cyclist and car in Grafton Road, NW5.

    'The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

    'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

    'The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station"

    & SIR KEIR'S VERSION

    "A spokesperson for Sir Keir said that the Labour leader was involved in a minor road traffic accident and spoke to a police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and others involved.

    Sir Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived then reported the incident to a police station, and has since been in touch with the other person involved, the spokesperson added."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882229/Police-launch-investigation-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-Starmer-involved-road-accident.html



    If you dont assume anything around the timings all the above can be true and consistent.

    Shame no Keir exit date market on betfair!
    Yes, true. And I believe the most likely explanation

    I did look to lay him for next PM! 3.95, I didnt bother
    I did, its a lay anyway, if the Tories are looking likely to lose the election they are odds on to replace Johnson before then, plus you have Johnson health/family/laziness/earnings resignation in your favour as well as Starmer being replaced or jacking it in.
    Yes, thats my thinking also. If he looks like winning, Boris wont be the one he takes on
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    "The best Biden prices might come as the initial numbers from his three key targets show Trump doing well."

    Unless Texas or Florida flip.

    Once we have seen a dozen or two counties from 3 or 4 states get to 100% counted, we'll be reasonably sure whether we're looking at a clear result or a multi day process.

    Indeed, the greatest betting opportunities (Brexit, US Presidential election 2016) come when the market is slow to respond to new evidence because of preconceived ideas about the likely result.
    Once we see Sumter in Florida we will know.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,909
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    "The best Biden prices might come as the initial numbers from his three key targets show Trump doing well."

    Unless Texas or Florida flip.

    Once we have seen a dozen or two counties from 3 or 4 states get to 100% counted, we'll be reasonably sure whether we're looking at a clear result or a multi day process.

    Indeed, the greatest betting opportunities (Brexit, US Presidential election 2016) come when the market is slow to respond to new evidence because of preconceived ideas about the likely result.
    Thanks Robert – any chance of a list of the counties to watch?

  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,907
    I've been thinking about this a lot.

    From memory in 2016, the Nytimes had a really good election needle which auto-compared county results with previous county results and spat out a prediction (which was pretty accurate) as to how well either candidate was doing in a given state.

    This is great for journalism, not so helpful to pundits as it makes it rather easy for the rest of the market to be well informed. I was considering trying to make my own version, but suspect it's not worth it as there will be enough data journalists doing this and doing it better than I can.

    Last time, astoundingly, I was able to recoup about half of my losses on the popular vote market because California was slow in counting and it was obviously going for Hilary.

    I'm hoping a similar such opportunity will present itself on the night... I suspect turnout %/total number of votes for either candidate might be a profitable market *if* you can get the math right.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    edited October 2020
    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    He did exchange details with the injured party though, just left before the breathalysers arrived!

    I can't believe he wouldn't have acted appropriately to be honest. Quite possible he contacted the police station as claimed, and they were contacting him at the same time
    And with a BTP officer, just not with the Met.
    Actually, upon reading it again, Stamer could have reported the matter to the police on their say so, so is not lying in saying he reported it, just not mentioning that he didnt until told to

    "'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police."
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Disparity between the Met's version of events and Sir Keir's

    POLICE VERSION

    "A Metropolitan Police spokesman told MailOnline: 'Police were alerted by LAS at around 12.20hrs on Sunday 25 October to a report of a road traffic collision between a cyclist and car in Grafton Road, NW5.

    'The driver of the car had stopped at the scene and exchanged details with the cyclist but had left before officers arrived.

    'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police.

    'The driver of the car subsequently attended a north London police station"

    & SIR KEIR'S VERSION

    "A spokesperson for Sir Keir said that the Labour leader was involved in a minor road traffic accident and spoke to a police officer who attended the scene and swapped details with the officer and others involved.

    Sir Keir stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived then reported the incident to a police station, and has since been in touch with the other person involved, the spokesperson added."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882229/Police-launch-investigation-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-Starmer-involved-road-accident.html



    If you dont assume anything around the timings all the above can be true and consistent.

    Shame no Keir exit date market on betfair!
    Yes, true. And I believe the most likely explanation

    I did look to lay him for next PM! 3.95, I didnt bother
    I did, its a lay anyway, if the Tories are looking likely to lose the election they are odds on to replace Johnson before then, plus you have Johnson health/family/laziness/earnings resignation in your favour as well as Starmer being replaced or jacking it in.
    Yes, thats my thinking also. If he looks like winning, Boris wont be the one he takes on
    Boris will love it, making cheap jokes about Starmers driving is right up his street and finally something he can do well in 2020. It had to come sooner or later.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130

    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%.

    Using the Bayes theorem and using the measured positivity as a reasonable prior for the prevalence in the sample, and then iterating by taking the calculated true positives, dividing them by the number of samples for a calculated prevalence to improve the prior, and iterating 30 times until the prevalence in was equal to the prevalence out to within less than a thousandth of a percentage point.

    We get this:


    It's quite hard to present enough information in this sort of range, but:

    - The dark gold/brown columns are the measured cases (the reported cases from testing)
    - The black columns are the expected false positives
    - The green columns are the expected false negatives
    - The red columns are the net error (the amount by which the measured and true cases differ - take away the false positives (people without covid who were incorrectly reported as having it) and add the false negatives (people with covid who were tested and incorrectly reported as being clear)
    - The see-through columns are the calculated true cases, when false positives and negatives are taken into account.

    Conclusions:
    - When the virus is at very low levels, we'll see up to a few hundred extra cases per day incorrectly reported (if the false positive rate is about as high as is reasonably plausible)
    - When it starts to increase, the false positives and false negatives balance out
    - When it gets to a reasonably high spread (ie the start of September), the false negatives start to outweight the false positives, and we end up underreporting cases
    - The false negatives will be currently outweighing false positives to the tune of a few thousand cases

    One further worrying conclusion: false positives and false negatives mean that the rate of true cases has been increasing faster than reported cases (I doubt that Toby and co meant for this to be the case):

    Great analysis. It was certainly the case that in July/August we had a very low prevalence, but never zero. One suspicion I have is that part of the reason for the huge increase in September is another wave of imported virus from holidays overseas. I've not seen this studied yet. The initial seeding has been investigated and shown to be multiple (>1000) different infection start points. I'd be very surprised if something similar to this didn't happen again. Off all the errors the UK has made, I believe the foreign holidays was one of the worst. Would it have been so terrible to stay in the UK for one summer?
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,909
    Apropos of (almost) nothing – The Grafton in NW5 is a decent pub.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,226
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    "The best Biden prices might come as the initial numbers from his three key targets show Trump doing well."

    Unless Texas or Florida flip.

    Once we have seen a dozen or two counties from 3 or 4 states get to 100% counted, we'll be reasonably sure whether we're looking at a clear result or a multi day process.

    Indeed, the greatest betting opportunities (Brexit, US Presidential election 2016) come when the market is slow to respond to new evidence because of preconceived ideas about the likely result.
    Only if the likely result doesn’t turn into the actual result, though!
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    isam said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    He did exchange details with the injured party though, just left before the breathalysers arrived!

    I can't believe he wouldn't have acted appropriately to be honest. Quite possible he contacted the police station as claimed, and they were contacting him at the same time
    And with a BTP officer, just not with the Met.
    Actually, upon reading it again, Stamer could have reported the matter to the police on their say so, so is not lying in saying he reported it, just not mentioning that he didnt until told to

    "'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police."
    Any injury RTC has to be reported to the police.
    However that can be at a police station within 24 hours ,as many slight injuries are done everyday.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242

    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%.

    Using the Bayes theorem and using the measured positivity as a reasonable prior for the prevalence in the sample, and then iterating by taking the calculated true positives, dividing them by the number of samples for a calculated prevalence to improve the prior, and iterating 30 times until the prevalence in was equal to the prevalence out to within less than a thousandth of a percentage point.

    We get this:


    It's quite hard to present enough information in this sort of range, but:

    - The dark gold/brown columns are the measured cases (the reported cases from testing)
    - The black columns are the expected false positives
    - The green columns are the expected false negatives
    - The red columns are the net error (the amount by which the measured and true cases differ - take away the false positives (people without covid who were incorrectly reported as having it) and add the false negatives (people with covid who were tested and incorrectly reported as being clear)
    - The see-through columns are the calculated true cases, when false positives and negatives are taken into account.

    Conclusions:
    - When the virus is at very low levels, we'll see up to a few hundred extra cases per day incorrectly reported (if the false positive rate is about as high as is reasonably plausible)
    - When it starts to increase, the false positives and false negatives balance out
    - When it gets to a reasonably high spread (ie the start of September), the false negatives start to outweight the false positives, and we end up underreporting cases
    - The false negatives will be currently outweighing false positives to the tune of a few thousand cases

    One further worrying conclusion: false positives and false negatives mean that the rate of true cases has been increasing faster than reported cases (I doubt that Toby and co meant for this to be the case):

    Great analysis. It was certainly the case that in July/August we had a very low prevalence, but never zero. One suspicion I have is that part of the reason for the huge increase in September is another wave of imported virus from holidays overseas. I've not seen this studied yet. The initial seeding has been investigated and shown to be multiple (>1000) different infection start points. I'd be very surprised if something similar to this didn't happen again. Off all the errors the UK has made, I believe the foreign holidays was one of the worst. Would it have been so terrible to stay in the UK for one summer?
    You're assuming that it isn't mostly community transmission.

    The case evidence shows that even in the most isolated spots in the country, there were cases bubbling away asymptomatically - every now and then cases popping up. The virus never went away.
  • Options
    Yorkcity said:

    isam said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    He did exchange details with the injured party though, just left before the breathalysers arrived!

    I can't believe he wouldn't have acted appropriately to be honest. Quite possible he contacted the police station as claimed, and they were contacting him at the same time
    And with a BTP officer, just not with the Met.
    Actually, upon reading it again, Stamer could have reported the matter to the police on their say so, so is not lying in saying he reported it, just not mentioning that he didnt until told to

    "'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police."
    Any injury RTC has to be reported to the police.
    However that can be at a police station within 24 hours ,as many slight injuries are done everyday.
    A law mandating waiting for the police to turn up at the scene of an accident would be interesting as from experience they sometimes dont even show up at quite serious accidents and leave it to the highways agency and ambulance. Id imagine their appearance at car hits bike to be fairly inconsistent.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    Yorkcity said:

    isam said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    He did exchange details with the injured party though, just left before the breathalysers arrived!

    I can't believe he wouldn't have acted appropriately to be honest. Quite possible he contacted the police station as claimed, and they were contacting him at the same time
    And with a BTP officer, just not with the Met.
    Actually, upon reading it again, Stamer could have reported the matter to the police on their say so, so is not lying in saying he reported it, just not mentioning that he didnt until told to

    "'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police."
    Any injury RTC has to be reported to the police.
    However that can be at a police station within 24 hours ,as many slight injuries are done everyday.
    Well the cyclist did go to hospital in an ambulance!
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%.

    Using the Bayes theorem and using the measured positivity as a reasonable prior for the prevalence in the sample, and then iterating by taking the calculated true positives, dividing them by the number of samples for a calculated prevalence to improve the prior, and iterating 30 times until the prevalence in was equal to the prevalence out to within less than a thousandth of a percentage point.

    We get this:


    It's quite hard to present enough information in this sort of range, but:

    - The dark gold/brown columns are the measured cases (the reported cases from testing)
    - The black columns are the expected false positives
    - The green columns are the expected false negatives
    - The red columns are the net error (the amount by which the measured and true cases differ - take away the false positives (people without covid who were incorrectly reported as having it) and add the false negatives (people with covid who were tested and incorrectly reported as being clear)
    - The see-through columns are the calculated true cases, when false positives and negatives are taken into account.

    Conclusions:
    - When the virus is at very low levels, we'll see up to a few hundred extra cases per day incorrectly reported (if the false positive rate is about as high as is reasonably plausible)
    - When it starts to increase, the false positives and false negatives balance out
    - When it gets to a reasonably high spread (ie the start of September), the false negatives start to outweight the false positives, and we end up underreporting cases
    - The false negatives will be currently outweighing false positives to the tune of a few thousand cases

    One further worrying conclusion: false positives and false negatives mean that the rate of true cases has been increasing faster than reported cases (I doubt that Toby and co meant for this to be the case):

    Great analysis. It was certainly the case that in July/August we had a very low prevalence, but never zero. One suspicion I have is that part of the reason for the huge increase in September is another wave of imported virus from holidays overseas. I've not seen this studied yet. The initial seeding has been investigated and shown to be multiple (>1000) different infection start points. I'd be very surprised if something similar to this didn't happen again. Off all the errors the UK has made, I believe the foreign holidays was one of the worst. Would it have been so terrible to stay in the UK for one summer?
    You're assuming that it isn't mostly community transmission.

    The case evidence shows that even in the most isolated spots in the country, there were cases bubbling away asymptomatically - every now and then cases popping up. The virus never went away.
    One set of sample data we do have for importation from holidays overseas, the footballers. They were all been regularly tested before and after their holidays. A significant proportion tested positive upon their return. And this is a pattern we have seen repeated among players across all the major European leagues.
  • Options
    theakestheakes Posts: 841
    Smells to me like 1970 in this country. Labour walking it, then one poll on election eve said Cons just in front. Ted Heath in with a comfortable majority. Do you remember that night, some Labour folk were holding "celebration parties" that broke up in depair!
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,104

    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%...

    Having checked the ONS infection survey data, the 14-day period with the lowest infection rate was 27 June - 10 July when it was 0.04%, 95% CI [0.02%-0.07%] so the absolute highest possible figure for a false positive rate is 0.07%, and likely lower as some of those would likely have been actual infections.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901

    Apropos of (almost) nothing – The Grafton in NW5 is a decent pub.

    For an early Sunday morning pint or two!

    I used to live in KT. My local was The Vine, although I used to go on quite a few pub crawls
  • Options
    theakes said:

    Smells to me like 1970 in this country. Labour walking it, then one poll on election eve said Cons just in front. Ted Heath in with a comfortable majority. Do you remember that night, some Labour folk were holding "celebration parties" that broke up in depair!

    66 million have already voted so a change on election eve will need to be pretty significant!
  • Options
    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903
    Watching live ballots in Jacksonville right now !
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,592

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Would SKS have a police escort/minder as LOTO anyway?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    It was @IanB2's excuse for Starmer not reporting it
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020
    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited October 2020
    Mal557 said:

    I see in the latest IBD poll its down to 4% again in the head to head, was up to 7 i think the other day, seems to yoyo a bit, but as its daily updating i guess depends on the 200 they poll on any given day.
    https://www.investors.com/news/biden-vs-trump-poll-joe-biden-lead-shrinks-donald-trump-tops-2016-vote-share-ibd-tipp-presidential-poll/

    Trump is now up to 46.3% with IBD so is now ahead of his 2016 voteshare of 46.1%, though Biden is also ahead of Hillary's voteshare on 50.7% to her 48.2%
  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Would SKS have a police escort/minder as LOTO anyway?
    That's not the claim.
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Yorkcity said:

    isam said:

    IanB2 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:



    Actually happened it seems, although the tweet is a joke

    If that actually happened then Sir Keir will surely have to resign:

    If you have been involved in a motoring accident, the law requires you to stop at the scene and exchange correct personal details with any person who has reasonable grounds to request them. If details are not exchanged you must report to the police as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours. Failing to stop at the scene of an accident involving injury or damage is an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment.

    https://cartwrightking.co.uk/areas-of-practice/motoring-law/failing-stop-after-accident
    He did exchange details with the injured party though, just left before the breathalysers arrived!

    I can't believe he wouldn't have acted appropriately to be honest. Quite possible he contacted the police station as claimed, and they were contacting him at the same time
    And with a BTP officer, just not with the Met.
    Actually, upon reading it again, Stamer could have reported the matter to the police on their say so, so is not lying in saying he reported it, just not mentioning that he didnt until told to

    "'Officers later attempted to contact the driver of the car and left a message advising him to report the matter to police."
    Any injury RTC has to be reported to the police.
    However that can be at a police station within 24 hours ,as many slight injuries are done everyday.
    A law mandating waiting for the police to turn up at the scene of an accident would be interesting as from experience they sometimes dont even show up at quite serious accidents and leave it to the highways agency and ambulance. Id imagine their appearance at car hits bike to be fairly inconsistent.
    Yes what you say is true in that many injury RTC the police do not attend the scene.
    Some time ago the police change the naming of accidents from road traffic accidents to road traffic collisions.
    As in theory some one is at fault to cause a collision.
  • Options
    FPT missed the new thread.

    Alistair said:

    I see the decision written by Beer loving Kavanaugh has had at least 3 black-and-white factual errors in it so far.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Kavanaugh gets persuaded to step down at some point. He seems like an accident waiting to happen. I also think we are likely to see pragmatic conservatives like Roberts move to the left a bit to maintain public confidence in SCOTUS. I doubt if the court will prove quite as crazy right wing as some people fear. I also doubt the Democrats will add additional justices but it may prove useful leverage to keep the threat in the back pocket.
    The threat is only there for as long as the Democrats control both the Senate and the Oval Office.

    The moment they lose either the threat is gone. There is a very, very narrow window of opportunity here to act. Once the GOP contain a blocking majority in the Senate what would constrain the SCOTUS?
  • Options

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
    Did a BTP officer, for example off duty, perhaps just happen to be there? Not a formal report, just someone he left his details with?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,059
    HYUFD said:
    Robert Cahaly? Why do you persist in posting spurious polling from this knobhead?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
    Did a BTP officer, for example off duty, perhaps just happen to be there? Not a formal report, just someone he left his details with?
    Well you would expect the spokesperson to stick to that then wouldn't you. As I say, I think it is more like Starmer swapped details with the injured party, waited for the ambulance, then left, before subsequently spoke to the police...but the spokesperson initially mistook a sentence to mean that he spoke to them at the scene, rather than afterwards (as 90% of people would take such a sentence to mean).
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    The BTP I believe have some jurisdiction in an area around a train station.
    Do not know if the RTC occurred near one.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,161
    theakes said:

    Smells to me like 1970 in this country. Labour walking it, then one poll on election eve said Cons just in front. Ted Heath in with a comfortable majority. Do you remember that night, some Labour folk were holding "celebration parties" that broke up in depair!

    Or 1948 in the US.
  • Options

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
    Did a BTP officer, for example off duty, perhaps just happen to be there? Not a formal report, just someone he left his details with?
    Well you would expect the spokesperson to stick to that then wouldn't you. As I say, I think it is more like Starmer swapped details with the injured party, waited for the ambulance, then left, before subsequently spoke to the police...but the spokesperson initially mistook a sentence to mean that he spoke to them at the scene, rather than afterwards.
    Thats all he is required to do and all he has claimed to do, struggling to see the issue?

    It will be good cannon fodder for Boris at PMQ.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Yorkcity said:

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    The BTP I believe have some jurisdiction in an area around a train station.
    Do not know if the RTC occurred near one.
    Right next to Kentish Town station AIUI.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    If Florida is called on the night for Biden. Game over.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,059
    kinabalu said:

    If Florida is called on the night for Biden. Game over.

    SCOTUS may beg to differ.
  • Options

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
    Did a BTP officer, for example off duty, perhaps just happen to be there? Not a formal report, just someone he left his details with?
    Well you would expect the spokesperson to stick to that then wouldn't you. As I say, I think it is more like Starmer swapped details with the injured party, waited for the ambulance, then left, before subsequently spoke to the police...but the spokesperson initially mistook a sentence to mean that he spoke to them at the scene, rather than afterwards.
    Thats all he is required to do and all he has claimed to do, struggling to see the issue?

    It will be good cannon fodder for Boris at PMQ.
    I didn't say there was. Just pointing out how you can get the inconsistent statements.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    If Florida is called on the night for Biden. Game over.

    Yes, Sumter county in particular, if Trump gets pushed down towards 60%.
  • Options

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
    Did a BTP officer, for example off duty, perhaps just happen to be there? Not a formal report, just someone he left his details with?
    Well you would expect the spokesperson to stick to that then wouldn't you. As I say, I think it is more like Starmer swapped details with the injured party, waited for the ambulance, then left, before subsequently spoke to the police...but the spokesperson initially mistook a sentence to mean that he spoke to them at the scene, rather than afterwards.
    Thats all he is required to do and all he has claimed to do, struggling to see the issue?

    It will be good cannon fodder for Boris at PMQ.
    I didn't say there was. Just pointing out how you can get the inconsistent statements.
    The statements are not inconsistent!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,226
    isam said:

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    It was @IanB2's excuse for Starmer not reporting it
    Lol

    The account came from the LOTO’s office, which apparently provided the badge number of the officer Starmer says he spoke to.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited October 2020

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
    Did a BTP officer, for example off duty, perhaps just happen to be there? Not a formal report, just someone he left his details with?
    Well you would expect the spokesperson to stick to that then wouldn't you. As I say, I think it is more like Starmer swapped details with the injured party, waited for the ambulance, then left, before subsequently spoke to the police...but the spokesperson initially mistook a sentence to mean that he spoke to them at the scene, rather than afterwards.
    Thats all he is required to do and all he has claimed to do, struggling to see the issue?

    It will be good cannon fodder for Boris at PMQ.
    I didn't say there was. Just pointing out how you can get the inconsistent statements.
    The statements are not inconsistent!
    His spokesperson made inconsistent statements to the media. Initially saying spoke to BTP at the scene, then a more carefully worded explanation, which doesn't say that. I am just hypothesising that they mistook a passage to mean something that it doesn't say (but most people would presume to be the case).
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    Rasmussen +2 for Biden. We add the 6 they deducted and it's +8. Solid enough, one week out.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242
    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    The BTP I believe have some jurisdiction in an area around a train station.
    Do not know if the RTC occurred near one.
    Right next to Kentish Town station AIUI.
    I believe that BTP can do some policing while not actually to/for/at/near transport - something like "they believe that someone has committed, is committing etc, and waiting for a local officer would frustrate justice"??
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    kinabalu said:

    Rasmussen +2 for Biden. We add the 6 they deducted and it's +8. Solid enough, one week out.

    Rasmussen final 2016 poll Clinton +2, so Biden now doing no better than Hillary did with Rasmussen and only fractionally better than her with IBD
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Mal557 said:

    I see in the latest IBD poll its down to 4% again in the head to head, was up to 7 i think the other day, seems to yoyo a bit, but as its daily updating i guess depends on the 200 they poll on any given day.
    https://www.investors.com/news/biden-vs-trump-poll-joe-biden-lead-shrinks-donald-trump-tops-2016-vote-share-ibd-tipp-presidential-poll/

    Trump is now up to 46.3% with IBD so is now ahead of his 2016 voteshare of 46.1%, though Biden is also ahead of Hillary's voteshare on 50.7% to her 48.2%
    Is 2.5% a liddle bit bigger or a lot bigger than 0.2%
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,059
    isam said:
    Thankfully your boy has undertaken an inch perfect response in Northern England. A lesson to us all.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    edited October 2020
    Argentina locked down so hard and so fast that no one is taking any notice of the rules anymore - and the PMs popularity has halved


    "Argentina locked down early and hard. Now cases are exploding.

    When the coronavirus first reached Argentina, Andrés Bonicalzi steeled himself for the sacrifices to come. A lawyer in Buenos Aires, he started working from home, canceled his weekly visits with his parents and vowed to keep his son inside. The government announced one of the world’s strictest lockdowns. The next few weeks would be difficult.

    But those hard weeks have turned into seven months, and much of Argentina’s quarantine, believed to be the world’s longest, is still dragging on.

    So much sacrifice, Bonicalzi sometimes thinks, and for what? The South American country has become one of the coronavirus’s most explosive breeding grounds. In early August, fewer than 200,000 Argentines had contracted the virus. That number has since surged to 1.1 million — 1 out of every 44 people — and 28,000 are dead."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/coronavirus-argentina-million-quarantine-lockdown/2020/10/26/65eefde2-149c-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,913
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    "The best Biden prices might come as the initial numbers from his three key targets show Trump doing well."

    Unless Texas or Florida flip.

    Once we have seen a dozen or two counties from 3 or 4 states get to 100% counted, we'll be reasonably sure whether we're looking at a clear result or a multi day process.

    Indeed, the greatest betting opportunities (Brexit, US Presidential election 2016) come when the market is slow to respond to new evidence because of preconceived ideas about the likely result.
    I'll be looking closely at how Pinellas County (St Petersburg) and Monroe County (Key West) are going in Florida. 2 of 4 counties that flipped from Obama to Trump in 2016. I'll be sitting with a list of the county percentages in 2016 Florida/ Texas/ NC in hand.

    If Trump scrapes all three I don't think we'll know the result as Biden will be depending on winning PA/ MI/ Wis and they all count the early votes later. Very frustrating.
  • Options
    Delusional.

    "But the rallies" is going to be the "we won the argument" line in a week's time after the 🌊 hits.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    edited October 2020

    isam said:
    Thankfully your boy has undertaken an inch perfect response in Northern England. A lesson to us all.
    Ooh I sense umbridge taken and a gauntlet thrown!!!

    Haha who is "my boy"? Boris? Farage? Burnham?!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,378
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    "The best Biden prices might come as the initial numbers from his three key targets show Trump doing well."

    Unless Texas or Florida flip.

    Once we have seen a dozen or two counties from 3 or 4 states get to 100% counted, we'll be reasonably sure whether we're looking at a clear result or a multi day process.

    Indeed, the greatest betting opportunities (Brexit, US Presidential election 2016) come when the market is slow to respond to new evidence because of preconceived ideas about the likely result.
    Absolutely.
    Well worth staying up for the first reports - and indeed the PB Zoom meet if possible.
  • Options

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    "British Transport Police said today they had no record of Sir Keir Starmer speaking to them after a crash involving a cyclist - despite the Labour leader's spokesman insisting he gave them his details before leaving the scene. By this time Sir Keir had already left the scene, which is near Kentish Town Overground station, his spokesman saying later he had left his details with a British Transport Police officer and the cyclist."

    As I pointed out the statement they then put out is much more lawyerly. It may well be that the confusion via the spokesperson, is due to what most people would have done and interpret a carefully worded statement as speaking to them AT the scene, not speaking to them AFTER the incident.
    Did a BTP officer, for example off duty, perhaps just happen to be there? Not a formal report, just someone he left his details with?
    Well you would expect the spokesperson to stick to that then wouldn't you. As I say, I think it is more like Starmer swapped details with the injured party, waited for the ambulance, then left, before subsequently spoke to the police...but the spokesperson initially mistook a sentence to mean that he spoke to them at the scene, rather than afterwards.
    Thats all he is required to do and all he has claimed to do, struggling to see the issue?

    It will be good cannon fodder for Boris at PMQ.
    I didn't say there was. Just pointing out how you can get the inconsistent statements.
    The statements are not inconsistent!
    His spokesperson made inconsistent statements to the media. Initially saying spoke to BTP at the scene, then a more carefully worded explanation, which doesn't say that. I am just hypothesising that they mistook a passage to mean something that it doesn't say (but most people would presume to be the case).
    In which case apologies, I was comparing the statements on this thread which are consistent, wasnt aware of others.
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,913
    theakes said:

    Smells to me like 1970 in this country. Labour walking it, then one poll on election eve said Cons just in front. Ted Heath in with a comfortable majority. Do you remember that night, some Labour folk were holding "celebration parties" that broke up in depair!


    Perhaps you could explain to me exactly how you are "smelling" what's happening across the US right now.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,161

    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%.

    Using the Bayes theorem and using the measured positivity as a reasonable prior for the prevalence in the sample, and then iterating by taking the calculated true positives, dividing them by the number of samples for a calculated prevalence to improve the prior, and iterating 30 times until the prevalence in was equal to the prevalence out to within less than a thousandth of a percentage point.

    We get this:


    It's quite hard to present enough information in this sort of range, but:

    - The dark gold/brown columns are the measured cases (the reported cases from testing)
    - The black columns are the expected false positives
    - The green columns are the expected false negatives
    - The red columns are the net error (the amount by which the measured and true cases differ - take away the false positives (people without covid who were incorrectly reported as having it) and add the false negatives (people with covid who were tested and incorrectly reported as being clear)
    - The see-through columns are the calculated true cases, when false positives and negatives are taken into account.

    Conclusions:
    - When the virus is at very low levels, we'll see up to a few hundred extra cases per day incorrectly reported (if the false positive rate is about as high as is reasonably plausible)
    - When it starts to increase, the false positives and false negatives balance out
    - When it gets to a reasonably high spread (ie the start of September), the false negatives start to outweight the false positives, and we end up underreporting cases
    - The false negatives will be currently outweighing false positives to the tune of a few thousand cases

    One further worrying conclusion: false positives and false negatives mean that the rate of true cases has been increasing faster than reported cases (I doubt that Toby and co meant for this to be the case):

    Does this take account of the false positive rate changing? It might be statistical not very significant, but personally I find it difficult to believe that the chaos in track and trace and the intense pressure is not leading to more mistakes being made in the labs now than back in July.
  • Options
    Unfortunately its coming to the local hospital ICU.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,378
    Perhaps Cahaly's job might be to keep Trump sane until after the election, in order to stop his trying to sabotage it ?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,059
    isam said:

    isam said:
    Thankfully your boy has undertaken an inch perfect response in Northern England. A lesson to us all.
    Ooh I sense umbridge taken and a gauntlet thrown!!!

    Haha who is "my boy"? Boris? Farage? Burnham?!
    What with your trolling and HYUFD posting bogus polls, I'll bid you adieu.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027

    Delusional.

    "But the rallies" is going to be the "we won the argument" line in a week's time after the 🌊 hits.
    Although if Trump said "the real fight starts now" it would have a more ominous connotation.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901

    isam said:

    isam said:
    Thankfully your boy has undertaken an inch perfect response in Northern England. A lesson to us all.
    Ooh I sense umbridge taken and a gauntlet thrown!!!

    Haha who is "my boy"? Boris? Farage? Burnham?!
    What with your trolling and HYUFD posting bogus polls, I'll bid you adieu.
    So long
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    Perhaps Cahaly's job might be to keep Trump sane until after the election, in order to stop his trying to sabotage it ?
    Cahaly's job is to make money for Robert Cahaly by whatever means necessary.
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    RobD said:

    British Transport Police say they have no record of speaking to Keir Starmer at scene of crash with cyclist near the Labour leader's local pub

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8884757/British-Transport-Police-no-record-speaking-Keir-Starmer-scene-crash-cyclist.html

    Why would British Transport Police have any record of it. They're responsible for the railways after all.
    The BTP I believe have some jurisdiction in an area around a train station.
    Do not know if the RTC occurred near one.
    Right next to Kentish Town station AIUI.
    Depends where on Prince of Wales Road. Is an overground station there (Kentish Town West) but looks like it was over 100m away from the station
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,909
    Didn't Ras have Trumpton ahead yesterday?

    I can't keep up with it!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,378
    edited October 2020
    Is there a special word for lawyers’ irony ?

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/brett-kavanaugh-mail-ballots-trump-fraud.html
    ... George W. Bush’s 2000 election legal team—which included Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts—argued during that contested election that ballots arriving late and without postmarks, which were thought to benefit Bush, must be counted in Florida...

    Or are they just shameless hacks ?
    (tbf to Roberts, he’s clearly not completely impervious to the occasional pang of conscience.)
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,226
    CNN: Senate seats likely to switch Dem, grouped in order of likelihood (most to least):

    Colorado
    Michigan

    Arizona
    Maine
    North Carolina

    Iowa
    Montana

    South Carolina

    Alabama

    Georgia

    They have Iowa and Montana down as the toss ups, everything above leaning Dem and everything below leaning Rep
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,130

    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%.

    Using the Bayes theorem and using the measured positivity as a reasonable prior for the prevalence in the sample, and then iterating by taking the calculated true positives, dividing them by the number of samples for a calculated prevalence to improve the prior, and iterating 30 times until the prevalence in was equal to the prevalence out to within less than a thousandth of a percentage point.

    We get this:


    It's quite hard to present enough information in this sort of range, but:

    - The dark gold/brown columns are the measured cases (the reported cases from testing)
    - The black columns are the expected false positives
    - The green columns are the expected false negatives
    - The red columns are the net error (the amount by which the measured and true cases differ - take away the false positives (people without covid who were incorrectly reported as having it) and add the false negatives (people with covid who were tested and incorrectly reported as being clear)
    - The see-through columns are the calculated true cases, when false positives and negatives are taken into account.

    Conclusions:
    - When the virus is at very low levels, we'll see up to a few hundred extra cases per day incorrectly reported (if the false positive rate is about as high as is reasonably plausible)
    - When it starts to increase, the false positives and false negatives balance out
    - When it gets to a reasonably high spread (ie the start of September), the false negatives start to outweight the false positives, and we end up underreporting cases
    - The false negatives will be currently outweighing false positives to the tune of a few thousand cases

    One further worrying conclusion: false positives and false negatives mean that the rate of true cases has been increasing faster than reported cases (I doubt that Toby and co meant for this to be the case):

    Great analysis. It was certainly the case that in July/August we had a very low prevalence, but never zero. One suspicion I have is that part of the reason for the huge increase in September is another wave of imported virus from holidays overseas. I've not seen this studied yet. The initial seeding has been investigated and shown to be multiple (>1000) different infection start points. I'd be very surprised if something similar to this didn't happen again. Off all the errors the UK has made, I believe the foreign holidays was one of the worst. Would it have been so terrible to stay in the UK for one summer?
    You're assuming that it isn't mostly community transmission.

    The case evidence shows that even in the most isolated spots in the country, there were cases bubbling away asymptomatically - every now and then cases popping up. The virus never went away.
    I absolutely accept that it never went away, but also ask what changed at the end of summer. The obvious ones are schools returning for sure, but I'd love to know how many of the cases in the new explosion can be linked to those who travelled abroad. I may be totally wrong here, and obviously it wouldn't take much for the exponential to rise from just the UK reservoir of covid, but that's may theory.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077

    Didn't Ras have Trumpton ahead yesterday?

    I can't keep up with it!

    Ras is al owa the shop
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    theakes said:

    Smells to me like 1970 in this country. Labour walking it, then one poll on election eve said Cons just in front. Ted Heath in with a comfortable majority. Do you remember that night, some Labour folk were holding "celebration parties" that broke up in depair!

    Trump - an American Ted Heath. Quite a thought.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited October 2020
    Nigelb said:
    I'm awaiting the Andrew Neil update with bated breath.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129

    kinabalu said:

    If Florida is called on the night for Biden. Game over.

    SCOTUS may beg to differ.
    I don't expect it to be close enough for court fixing to be a concern. But if I'm wrong, yes, a concern.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,814

    Sorry to go off-topic so soon, but I'd just done a big post on the previous thread.
    I thought I'd have a look at the false positives issue while using actual maths rather than Tobymaths.

    Assuming:
    Sensitivity set to 80% as reported (so 20% false negatives from actual cases)

    Specificity is under discussion, so using the logic that you can't have more false positives than measured positives and looking at the positivity rate at the lowest prevalence (4th July, by the cases measured, was 0.349%, and this wasn't uniquely low - 12 of the days between the start of July and mid-August had sub-0.4% positivity) to set an upper bound. Assuming that the UK wasn't totally covid free and some people (of those singled out as most at risk of having it from symptoms and exposure) would get true positives, I assigned 0.3% as the highest plausible false positive rate; so specificity set to 99.7%...

    Having checked the ONS infection survey data, the 14-day period with the lowest infection rate was 27 June - 10 July when it was 0.04%, 95% CI [0.02%-0.07%] so the absolute highest possible figure for a false positive rate is 0.07%, and likely lower as some of those would likely have been actual infections.
    Of all the days on the list for tests carried out, there were 400 positives from 114,274 on 4 July (the lowest proportion) - 0.349%.
    We cannot set it to higher than that, because we'd be in the impossible position of saying that more than 400 out of those 400 were false positives.
    The ONS data is separate; we're looking only at false positives for these.

    It is arguable that the true prevalence had to have been at least 0.2% at random and would necessarily have been higher in the sample (and setting the false positives at 0.3% ends up with a true prevalence needing to be 0.064%), the false positive rate selected for this analysis must be way too high.

    Running it again until the lowest true prevalence I get in the test sample is 0.25% gives a false positive rate of 0.15%.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    One of my mates has got Covid, the first person I actually know that has got it, and my football match is called off on Saturday as the other team have a few players with it
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Penn GOP have walked away from their own deal. It will basically be impossible to have a "on the night" figure for Penn.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,059
    isam said:

    isam said:
    Thankfully your boy has undertaken an inch perfect response in Northern England. A lesson to us all.
    Ooh I sense umbridge taken and a gauntlet thrown!!!

    Haha who is "my boy"? Boris? Farage? Burnham?!
    P.S. I think the word you were looking for is "umbrage". Toodle pip!
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901

    isam said:

    isam said:
    Thankfully your boy has undertaken an inch perfect response in Northern England. A lesson to us all.
    Ooh I sense umbridge taken and a gauntlet thrown!!!

    Haha who is "my boy"? Boris? Farage? Burnham?!
    P.S. I think the word you were looking for is "umbrage". Toodle pip!
    haha quality!

    Always be the bigger man, I could learn a lot from you
This discussion has been closed.