Dunno if you were around in 2016 but there was a guy who claimed that a Trump supporting state official who described Michelle Obama as an 'ape in high heels' was only joking.
So one Trump supporter said something bad 4 years ago, so we should all get offended by this now. Ok.
Nope, just 'he's clearly joking' is one of the most pishily meretricious defences going.
His point was that Biden might not last the term and if that happens then Harris would become president.
There was no way of him saying that without the terminally offended complaining about it.
If he'd said Biden is old and likely to drop dead at any moment (which looks pretty likely judging from recent footage), people would be pretending to get offended by that instead.
Can you point to where Trump has merrily speculated about his own death. Surely just as relevant, since he's the other main candidate, and a fat, wheezing bag of shit?
Well he's just served a term as president with no problems and recovered from COVID in a few days, so seems to be in decent health.
I'm not sure Biden would recover quite as quickly.
Downing Street is privately working on the assumption that the second wave of coronavirus will be more deadly than the first, with the death toll remaining high throughout the winter.
An internal analysis of the projected course of the second wave is understood to show deaths peaking at a lower level than in the spring but remaining at that level for weeks or even months.
It is understood that the projection – provided by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) – has led to intense lobbying from Sir Patrick Vallance and other Government advisers for Boris Johnson to take more drastic action.
"It's going to be worse this time, more deaths," said one well-placed source. "That is the projection that has been put in front of the Prime Minister, and he is now being put under a lot of pressure to lock down again."
Great. As we're past the watershed, I'll simply 'Fuck this year'.
As I said, this is what Swiss officials were quietly relaying some time ago, to their population-in-denial. The 2nd wave is going to be longer, nastier, and deathlier. BRACE
It would be good to have an explanation instead of ex-cathedra pronouncements.
Don't hold your breath. The "model says" is about as explanatory as we little people are going to get.
"The model" seems to be as much of a black box as all that machine learning some people here go on about. "The computer says.." is no way to explain things and thereby hardly conducive to people changing their behaviour which is the crucial factor in the development of the pandemic.
Downing Street is privately working on the assumption that the second wave of coronavirus will be more deadly than the first, with the death toll remaining high throughout the winter.
An internal analysis of the projected course of the second wave is understood to show deaths peaking at a lower level than in the spring but remaining at that level for weeks or even months.
It is understood that the projection – provided by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) – has led to intense lobbying from Sir Patrick Vallance and other Government advisers for Boris Johnson to take more drastic action.
"It's going to be worse this time, more deaths," said one well-placed source. "That is the projection that has been put in front of the Prime Minister, and he is now being put under a lot of pressure to lock down again."
Great. As we're past the watershed, I'll simply 'Fuck this year'.
And very likely 'fuck 2021' as well.
Badminton Horse Trials said today that next year's event (5-9 May) will be behind closed doors. I had a lot of hope pinned on that being the first return to normal thing that was going to happen.
There go the planned elections as well. I'm still expecting them to at least defer the scheduled 2021 ones and just do the delayed 2020 ones.
Surely with month's still to go they've got time to put in place 100% postal vote elections, if necessary haven't they? Not that i see why it should be necessary. Or are they claiming that campaigning difficulty is the problem?
Although they could obviously have them in July or august without too much difficulty, even if things in general don't improve.
I'd agree they could probably do 100% postal vote elections, but with arguments about coughing up the money for it, and counts taking longer due to social distanced arrangements etc, and given a whole bunch of areas have already seen a delay for a year, it just seems so easy to argue that to spread the cost and burden of it they should split them up.
FPT: Hm. Suppose you're trying to work out how much someone weighs. Do you go with a set of scales, however imprecise, or a thermometer?
I might set some of my Y13s that question: how do measure someone’s mass with a thermometer? I can think of three ways off the top of my head...
long lever / moment of force throw it at someone floating in space / kinetic energy calculation hmmm, struggling for a third
I would have gone with conservation of momentum for your second one, and that was not one of the three I had in mind. If you are in space measure the value of g from the person would do it.
One I was thinking of was to supply a know amount of heat to them and see how much their temperature changes. Then I had your first one.
Another is to offer to give them the thermometer if they will tell you their weight ...
Bomb calorimetry?
Stick it in their middle, kill 'em and measure the time taken to return to RT?
If you're allowed a spring as well, you could have the person bounce off the spring, and measure how much the spring heats up. What's that called, Young's modulus?
If you have a spring you don’t really need anything else to be honest, assuming you know it’s spring constant (which is related to the Young modulus).
Your username suggests a science background, or is it just a memory of Y8 physics lessons?
If you believe Nate Silver and the polls, then you definitely should be backing Biden at 5/6. It's a steal if the polls are right.
If...
It is a steal.
When can you think of a national election where the polls have been more than four points wrong in recent times?
2019 UK - basically right 2018 Midterms - basically right, maybe Dems very slightly underrated 2017 UK - Labour did three points better 2017 France - Macron outperformed by 1%, Le Pen underperformed by 1% 2016 - Brexit - Polls were four points out 2016 US - Polls were one point out 2012 US - Polls were three points out 2008 US - Polls were basically right
As the phrase goes "it's not a problem until it's a problem".
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
Downing Street is privately working on the assumption that the second wave of coronavirus will be more deadly than the first, with the death toll remaining high throughout the winter.
An internal analysis of the projected course of the second wave is understood to show deaths peaking at a lower level than in the spring but remaining at that level for weeks or even months.
It is understood that the projection – provided by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) – has led to intense lobbying from Sir Patrick Vallance and other Government advisers for Boris Johnson to take more drastic action.
"It's going to be worse this time, more deaths," said one well-placed source. "That is the projection that has been put in front of the Prime Minister, and he is now being put under a lot of pressure to lock down again."
Great. As we're past the watershed, I'll simply 'Fuck this year'.
As I said, this is what Swiss officials were quietly relaying some time ago, to their population-in-denial. The 2nd wave is going to be longer, nastier, and deathlier. BRACE
It would be good to have an explanation instead of ex-cathedra pronouncements.
Don't hold your breath. The "model says" is about as explanatory as we little people are going to get.
"The model" seems to be as much of a black box as all that machine learning some people here go on about. "The computer says.." is no way to explain things and thereby hardly conducive to people changing their behaviour which is the crucial factor in the development of the pandemic.
Perhaps we could put in a transfer request/bid for Dr Fauci.
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Isn't that the wrong way of framing the question, though?
I doubt that the PM could get any sort of lockdown, even a time-limited circuit breaker, through Parliament on Conservative votes right now, and he doesn't want to rely on opposition votes. So in that sense, you're right.
But.
As things stand, the infection rate is continuing to increase. Few, if any, parts of England have R meaningfully below 1. So- is there an infection rate where the nation has no choice but to lock down again, because the health implications are too horrible to contemplate? If so- what is it? If not- what is the plan?
Downing Street is privately working on the assumption that the second wave of coronavirus will be more deadly than the first, with the death toll remaining high throughout the winter.
An internal analysis of the projected course of the second wave is understood to show deaths peaking at a lower level than in the spring but remaining at that level for weeks or even months.
It is understood that the projection – provided by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) – has led to intense lobbying from Sir Patrick Vallance and other Government advisers for Boris Johnson to take more drastic action.
"It's going to be worse this time, more deaths," said one well-placed source. "That is the projection that has been put in front of the Prime Minister, and he is now being put under a lot of pressure to lock down again."
Great. As we're past the watershed, I'll simply 'Fuck this year'.
As I said, this is what Swiss officials were quietly relaying some time ago, to their population-in-denial. The 2nd wave is going to be longer, nastier, and deathlier. BRACE
It would be good to have an explanation instead of ex-cathedra pronouncements.
Don't hold your breath. The "model says" is about as explanatory as we little people are going to get.
"The model" seems to be as much of a black box as all that machine learning some people here go on about. "The computer says.." is no way to explain things and thereby hardly conducive to people changing their behaviour which is the crucial factor in the development of the pandemic.
Perhaps we could put in a transfer request/bid for Dr Fauci.
Fauci impresses me greatly. Among other things for his calm insouciance in the face of Trumpian provocation.
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Yes, because she pretends to be something she isn't. She isn't dumb, being a senator from California means you have to appear more moderate if you want to play on the national stage. Doesn't change her voting record.
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
If you believe Nate Silver and the polls, then you definitely should be backing Biden at 5/6. It's a steal if the polls are right.
If...
It is a steal.
When can you think of a national election where the polls have been more than four points wrong in recent times?
2019 UK - basically right 2018 Midterms - basically right, maybe Dems very slightly underrated 2017 UK - Labour did three points better 2017 France - Macron outperformed by 1%, Le Pen underperformed by 1% 2016 - Brexit - Polls were four points out 2016 US - Polls were one point out 2012 US - Polls were three points out 2008 US - Polls were basically right
As the phrase goes "it's not a problem until it's a problem".
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
That's the polling. Yes, there were plenty of polls showing Remain leads. But there were also plenty of polls that predicted Leave.
Not only that, but there was movement, sustained movement.
Isn't that the wrong way of framing the question, though?
I doubt that the PM could get any sort of lockdown, even a time-limited circuit breaker, through Parliament on Conservative votes right now, and he doesn't want to rely on opposition votes. So in that sense, you're right.
But.
As things stand, the infection rate is continuing to increase. Few, if any, parts of England have R meaningfully below 1. So- is there an infection rate where the nation has no choice but to lock down again, because the health implications are too horrible to contemplate? If so- what is it? If not- what is the plan?
That is a fair summary and question but of course a national lockdown would involve the devolved administrations and of course simple to understand rules, and not the controversy seen here in Wales
To be fair, PPP is a Democratic polling firm. Other polls in Montana have shown a much larger Trump lead there. It is entirely possible that PPP are also selectively releasing polling that favours a narrative that they think favours their cause. In this case to encourage their supporters to go to the polls by believing that the Democrats are in with a shout. Even if they don't need Montana for the White House, there is a tight Senate race there, so Dems going to the polls in Montana does matter a lot in terms of the prospects of the Dems controlling the Senate.
I suggest that it's best at this point to discount all polling by conducted by companies that either have links to the respective parties (the likes of PPP, Trafalgar, Rasmussen) or which was commissioned by organisations which are strongly campaigning for either side.
I think this is spot on: this is a poll designed to get Democrats to the poll to vote for Bullock under the mistaken impression that Montana might tip at the General.
I am sure that is right but it has crossed my mind before now that in a strong blue wave Montana might be one of the more outlandish States to flip. The reason is the long border with Canada, which has conspicuously done rather better with Covid than the USA.
FPT: Hm. Suppose you're trying to work out how much someone weighs. Do you go with a set of scales, however imprecise, or a thermometer?
I might set some of my Y13s that question: how do measure someone’s mass with a thermometer? I can think of three ways off the top of my head...
long lever / moment of force throw it at someone floating in space / kinetic energy calculation hmmm, struggling for a third
I would have gone with conservation of momentum for your second one, and that was not one of the three I had in mind. If you are in space measure the value of g from the person would do it.
One I was thinking of was to supply a know amount of heat to them and see how much their temperature changes. Then I had your first one.
Another is to offer to give them the thermometer if they will tell you their weight ...
Bomb calorimetry?
Stick it in their middle, kill 'em and measure the time taken to return to RT?
If you're allowed a spring as well, you could have the person bounce off the spring, and measure how much the spring heats up. What's that called, Young's modulus?
If you have a spring you don’t really need anything else to be honest, assuming you know it’s spring constant (which is related to the Young modulus).
Your username suggests a science background, or is it just a memory of Y8 physics lessons?
Downing Street is privately working on the assumption that the second wave of coronavirus will be more deadly than the first, with the death toll remaining high throughout the winter.
An internal analysis of the projected course of the second wave is understood to show deaths peaking at a lower level than in the spring but remaining at that level for weeks or even months.
It is understood that the projection – provided by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) – has led to intense lobbying from Sir Patrick Vallance and other Government advisers for Boris Johnson to take more drastic action.
"It's going to be worse this time, more deaths," said one well-placed source. "That is the projection that has been put in front of the Prime Minister, and he is now being put under a lot of pressure to lock down again."
Great. As we're past the watershed, I'll simply 'Fuck this year'.
As I said, this is what Swiss officials were quietly relaying some time ago, to their population-in-denial. The 2nd wave is going to be longer, nastier, and deathlier. BRACE
It would be good to have an explanation instead of ex-cathedra pronouncements.
Don't hold your breath. The "model says" is about as explanatory as we little people are going to get.
"The model" seems to be as much of a black box as all that machine learning some people here go on about. "The computer says.." is no way to explain things and thereby hardly conducive to people changing their behaviour which is the crucial factor in the development of the pandemic.
That isn't true of all ML at all. Deep Neural Networks are difficult to inferer what the computer actually learned (and that is a huge criticism of them). But there plenty of other ML techniques that are prefectly interpretable and don't operate like a black box at all.
Given the limited COVID data, most models aren't using neural nets.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
As an aside, I'm glad my business is in Arizona. During summer, the virus is rampant as everyone is inside, and during winter they can barbeque and eat outside and the virus recedes.
Do you sell life insurance policies with a watertight exclusion of deaths in months with no r in them? If not, why the rejoicing?
As an aside, I'm glad my business is in Arizona. During summer, the virus is rampant as everyone is inside, and during winter they can barbeque and eat outside and the virus recedes.
I have some bad news for you about Arizona's case numbers...
In that theamgreatness Florida poll is the following :
Already voted
Trump 36 Biden 83 Others 4
(Total 127)
5.2 million had voted at the start of the fieldwork, 6 million by the end date.
Remaining 2 party voters split 156 Trump / 92 Biden
Total 253
There's simply not that many voters left !
Yeah, a number of these polls have some literally impossible implied turnout numbers.
What I haven't worked out is if that is terrible for Trump (not enough voters to make up the gap) or bad for the poll (too many early voters in the sample)
To be fair, PPP is a Democratic polling firm. Other polls in Montana have shown a much larger Trump lead there. It is entirely possible that PPP are also selectively releasing polling that favours a narrative that they think favours their cause. In this case to encourage their supporters to go to the polls by believing that the Democrats are in with a shout. Even if they don't need Montana for the White House, there is a tight Senate race there, so Dems going to the polls in Montana does matter a lot in terms of the prospects of the Dems controlling the Senate.
I suggest that it's best at this point to discount all polling by conducted by companies that either have links to the respective parties (the likes of PPP, Trafalgar, Rasmussen) or which was commissioned by organisations which are strongly campaigning for either side.
I think this is spot on: this is a poll designed to get Democrats to the poll to vote for Bullock under the mistaken impression that Montana might tip at the General.
I will not take this scurilous reframing of of Biden's Montana surge lying down.
This is real hard evidence of Biden taking Montana for 100% certain and the money I placed on him doing so at 12/1 has nothing to do with my prognostications.
PPP were the most accurate pollster across the 2012 campaign so I certainly wouldn't bump them in the same category as Trafalgar/Rasmussen
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
FPT: Hm. Suppose you're trying to work out how much someone weighs. Do you go with a set of scales, however imprecise, or a thermometer?
I might set some of my Y13s that question: how do measure someone’s mass with a thermometer? I can think of three ways off the top of my head...
long lever / moment of force throw it at someone floating in space / kinetic energy calculation hmmm, struggling for a third
I would have gone with conservation of momentum for your second one, and that was not one of the three I had in mind. If you are in space measure the value of g from the person would do it.
One I was thinking of was to supply a know amount of heat to them and see how much their temperature changes. Then I had your first one.
Another is to offer to give them the thermometer if they will tell you their weight ...
Bomb calorimetry?
Stick it in their middle, kill 'em and measure the time taken to return to RT?
If you're allowed a spring as well, you could have the person bounce off the spring, and measure how much the spring heats up. What's that called, Young's modulus?
If you have a spring you don’t really need anything else to be honest, assuming you know it’s spring constant (which is related to the Young modulus).
Your username suggests a science background, or is it just a memory of Y8 physics lessons?
The name is more reflective (or should I say refractive?) of my not settling down on one party. I don't think I've ever voted for the same party in two consecutive elections. And yeah, it's more memories-from-school rather than any science profession; I'm one of those people blessed with a formidable memory, so excellent at learning stuff, but I am weak when it comes to research and casting facts into new knowledge. You need that spark of imagination and creativity to be a "real" scientist, which I do not have. So instead I'm just good at pub quizzes.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Big Doms observation that our intuitions aren't fit for purpose seems about right. His problem is he appears to be incredibly poor person to oversee any sort of reform.
If you believe Nate Silver and the polls, then you definitely should be backing Biden at 5/6. It's a steal if the polls are right.
If...
It is a steal.
When can you think of a national election where the polls have been more than four points wrong in recent times?
2019 UK - basically right 2018 Midterms - basically right, maybe Dems very slightly underrated 2017 UK - Labour did three points better 2017 France - Macron outperformed by 1%, Le Pen underperformed by 1% 2016 - Brexit - Polls were four points out 2016 US - Polls were one point out 2012 US - Polls were three points out 2008 US - Polls were basically right
As the phrase goes "it's not a problem until it's a problem".
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
So... You've just ignore the BMG poll with the 10 point leave lead then?
To be fair, PPP is a Democratic polling firm. Other polls in Montana have shown a much larger Trump lead there. It is entirely possible that PPP are also selectively releasing polling that favours a narrative that they think favours their cause. In this case to encourage their supporters to go to the polls by believing that the Democrats are in with a shout. Even if they don't need Montana for the White House, there is a tight Senate race there, so Dems going to the polls in Montana does matter a lot in terms of the prospects of the Dems controlling the Senate.
I suggest that it's best at this point to discount all polling by conducted by companies that either have links to the respective parties (the likes of PPP, Trafalgar, Rasmussen) or which was commissioned by organisations which are strongly campaigning for either side.
I think this is spot on: this is a poll designed to get Democrats to the poll to vote for Bullock under the mistaken impression that Montana might tip at the General.
I am sure that is right but it has crossed my mind before now that in a strong blue wave Montana might be one of the more outlandish States to flip. The reason is the long border with Canada, which has conspicuously done rather better with Covid than the USA.
Yes that's the kind of talk my money likes to hear.
To be fair, PPP is a Democratic polling firm. Other polls in Montana have shown a much larger Trump lead there. It is entirely possible that PPP are also selectively releasing polling that favours a narrative that they think favours their cause. In this case to encourage their supporters to go to the polls by believing that the Democrats are in with a shout. Even if they don't need Montana for the White House, there is a tight Senate race there, so Dems going to the polls in Montana does matter a lot in terms of the prospects of the Dems controlling the Senate.
I suggest that it's best at this point to discount all polling by conducted by companies that either have links to the respective parties (the likes of PPP, Trafalgar, Rasmussen) or which was commissioned by organisations which are strongly campaigning for either side.
I think this is spot on: this is a poll designed to get Democrats to the poll to vote for Bullock under the mistaken impression that Montana might tip at the General.
I will not take this scurilous reframing of of Biden's Montana surge lying down.
This is real hard evidence of Biden taking Montana for 100% certain and the money I placed on him doing so at 12/1 has nothing to do with my prognostications.
PPP were the most accurate pollster across the 2012 campaign so I certainly wouldn't bump them in the same category as Trafalgar/Rasmussen
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
All valid. I still ask though whose model should we follow? And please not nz which has special characteristics. Which western nation is the one? Germany did well in the first wave, but they too are struggling with keeping the economy going and Covid suppressed. We all need to stiffen the resolve, lock ourselves down and do our bit. The problem with Covid is the spread before symptoms. That’s why it’s so hard for isolation of people. We also need to move away from pcr as the mass test. We need to use much more rapid tests, even if less accurate.
Downing Street is privately working on the assumption that the second wave of coronavirus will be more deadly than the first, with the death toll remaining high throughout the winter.
An internal analysis of the projected course of the second wave is understood to show deaths peaking at a lower level than in the spring but remaining at that level for weeks or even months.
It is understood that the projection – provided by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) – has led to intense lobbying from Sir Patrick Vallance and other Government advisers for Boris Johnson to take more drastic action.
"It's going to be worse this time, more deaths," said one well-placed source. "That is the projection that has been put in front of the Prime Minister, and he is now being put under a lot of pressure to lock down again."
Great. As we're past the watershed, I'll simply 'Fuck this year'.
As I said, this is what Swiss officials were quietly relaying some time ago, to their population-in-denial. The 2nd wave is going to be longer, nastier, and deathlier. BRACE
It would be good to have an explanation instead of ex-cathedra pronouncements.
Don't hold your breath. The "model says" is about as explanatory as we little people are going to get.
"The model" seems to be as much of a black box as all that machine learning some people here go on about. "The computer says.." is no way to explain things and thereby hardly conducive to people changing their behaviour which is the crucial factor in the development of the pandemic.
That isn't true of all ML at all. Deep Neural Networks are difficult to inferer what the computer actually learned (and that is a huge criticism of them). But there plenty of other ML techniques that are prefectly interpretable and don't operate like a black box at all.
Given the limited COVID data, most models aren't using neural nets.
Well I could be convinced by a published machine learning solution which demonstrated explicativity, in terms of cause and effect. Of any complex problem at all. As you say, neural nets don't cut it.
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Yes, because she pretends to be something she isn't. She isn't dumb, being a senator from California means you have to appear more moderate if you want to play on the national stage. Doesn't change her voting record.
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
With all due respect, that's cherry picking data. If you look at the same source - Govtrack.us - and actually use the whole period for which Harris is a Senator, rather than just this year, then 'lo, it turns out she's not particularly liberal at all - certainly not compared to say Sanders or Warren.
She's not in favour of Medicare for All. She doesn't support abolishing ICE. She has been very critical of Defund the Police.
Come on @brokenwheel, do you genuinely believe she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders?
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Very much true but not just confined to the UK
That's not a defence. I don't care what happens outside of our borders, I care about what happens here and the grim prospect of spending three months isolated from my family and friends again. The government had the chance to get ahead of all of this and through incompetence and plain old corruption (Dido, Serco) we're (my wife and I) not going to be able to spend Christmas with my sister, brother-in-law and niece as we've planned.
I always wonder. Are Trump rallies totally unscripted, or does he just go totally off-piste in the middle of his autocue speech?
Totally unscripted, unfettered, unregulated AND un-house-broken
As ad-libbed works of fiction, on the entertainment front they are quite good. Better than plenty of improv comedy i have seen over the years.
Dreaming out loud about your opponent being assassinated - in a country where FOUR presidents have been killed in just this manner, and five others have been targeted by would-be assassin - is WAY beyond the pale, even for a total piece of scum like Trumpsky.
AND if YOU find it funny in this context, then I question just where your head is at?
Trump jokes like a mafia don. Plausibly deniable incitement - as repeatedly with Whitmer.
In that theamgreatness Florida poll is the following :
Already voted
Trump 36 Biden 83 Others 4
(Total 127)
5.2 million had voted at the start of the fieldwork, 6 million by the end date.
Remaining 2 party voters split 156 Trump / 92 Biden
Total 253
There's simply not that many voters left !
Yeah, a number of these polls have some literally impossible implied turnout numbers.
What I haven't worked out is if that is terrible for Trump (not enough voters to make up the gap) or bad for the poll (too many early voters in the sample)
Say an average of 5.6m people in FL had voted when that poll was conducted.
And assume 11.2m will vote this year (it was 9.4m in in 2016) - that would imply 77% turnout (75% in 2016).
Then approximately half the FL voters had voted by the time of this poll so their 'have voted' / 'yet to vote' sample sizes should have been even. Wheareas their 'yet to vote' (Trump leaning) sample was twice as large as the 'have voted' (Biden leaning) sample.
As an aside, I'm glad my business is in Arizona. During summer, the virus is rampant as everyone is inside, and during winter they can barbeque and eat outside and the virus recedes.
Do you sell life insurance policies with a watertight exclusion of deaths in months with no r in them? If not, why the rejoicing?
Isn't that the wrong way of framing the question, though?
I doubt that the PM could get any sort of lockdown, even a time-limited circuit breaker, through Parliament on Conservative votes right now, and he doesn't want to rely on opposition votes. So in that sense, you're right.
But.
As things stand, the infection rate is continuing to increase. Few, if any, parts of England have R meaningfully below 1. So- is there an infection rate where the nation has no choice but to lock down again, because the health implications are too horrible to contemplate? If so- what is it? If not- what is the plan?
If you believe Nate Silver and the polls, then you definitely should be backing Biden at 5/6. It's a steal if the polls are right.
If...
It is a steal.
When can you think of a national election where the polls have been more than four points wrong in recent times?
2019 UK - basically right 2018 Midterms - basically right, maybe Dems very slightly underrated 2017 UK - Labour did three points better 2017 France - Macron outperformed by 1%, Le Pen underperformed by 1% 2016 - Brexit - Polls were four points out 2016 US - Polls were one point out 2012 US - Polls were three points out 2008 US - Polls were basically right
As the phrase goes "it's not a problem until it's a problem".
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
That's the polling. Yes, there were plenty of polls showing Remain leads. But there were also plenty of polls that predicted Leave.
Not only that, but there was movement, sustained movement.
What have we not seen this time around?
Movement.
It’s also not really fair to compare a one-off referendum against polling for national elections that occur regularly every four years or so, which gives you a wealth of data to calibrate models.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Very much true but not just confined to the UK
That's not a defence. I don't care what happens outside of our borders, I care about what happens here and the grim prospect of spending three months isolated from my family and friends again. The government had the chance to get ahead of all of this and through incompetence and plain old corruption (Dido, Serco) we're (my wife and I) not going to be able to spend Christmas with my sister, brother-in-law and niece as we've planned.
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Yes, because she pretends to be something she isn't. She isn't dumb, being a senator from California means you have to appear more moderate if you want to play on the national stage. Doesn't change her voting record.
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
With all due respect, that's cherry picking data. If you look at the same source - Govtrack.us - and actually use the whole period for which Harris is a Senator, rather than just this year, then 'lo, it turns out she's not particularly liberal at all - certainly not compared to say Sanders or Warren.
She's not in favour of Medicare for All. She doesn't support abolishing ICE. She has been very critical of Defund the Police.
Come on @brokenwheel, do you genuinely believe she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders?
That's a really convoluted way of saying she's the most liberal-voting senator this year...
And why do you keep going on about what she "advocates"? That's not the question, it's the votes.
In considering yours truly's views on Pennsylvania, please know that I am
> native-born Pennsylvanian
> descendant of immigrants - German, Scots-Irish & Irish Catholic) who came to PA before 1850.
> direct descendant of three PA soldiers who defended the Keystone State and turned back the "High Tide of the Confederacy" at Gettysburg.
> son of politically (and religiously) mixed marriage, my maternal grandmother being a local Democratic activist, while my paternal grandfather was a rock-ribbed Republican.
Doubt that ANY PBer can match my PA credentials! Hope you are all SUITABLY impressed!!
Here's a tip for ENIght - keep yer eye on Beaver County!!!
What was your prediction for PA in 2016 just before voting ended on election night?
In that theamgreatness Florida poll is the following :
Already voted
Trump 36 Biden 83 Others 4
(Total 127)
5.2 million had voted at the start of the fieldwork, 6 million by the end date.
Remaining 2 party voters split 156 Trump / 92 Biden
Total 253
There's simply not that many voters left !
Yeah, a number of these polls have some literally impossible implied turnout numbers.
What I haven't worked out is if that is terrible for Trump (not enough voters to make up the gap) or bad for the poll (too many early voters in the sample)
Say an average of 5.6m people in FL had voted when that poll was conducted.
And assume 11.2m will vote this year (it was 9.4m in in 2016) - that would imply 77% turnout (75% in 2016).
Then approximately half the FL voters had voted by the time of this poll so their 'have voted' / 'yet to vote' sample sizes should have been even. Wheareas their 'yet to vote' (Trump leaning) sample was twice as large as the 'have voted' (Biden leaning) sample.
Yeah, Trump is fucked. I was just seeing if anyone would try some crazy maths to make it bad for Biden.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
All valid. I still ask though whose model should we follow? And please not nz which has special characteristics. Which western nation is the one? Germany did well in the first wave, but they too are struggling with keeping the economy going and Covid suppressed. We all need to stiffen the resolve, lock ourselves down and do our bit. The problem with Covid is the spread before symptoms. That’s why it’s so hard for isolation of people. We also need to move away from pcr as the mass test. We need to use much more rapid tests, even if less accurate.
We need to make our own model.
1. Depends on 3 2. Increase the incentive to isolate, make breaking isolation impossible either through GPS tracking or by random daily checks carried out by local teams in hazmat suits and the ability to leverage punitive fines. 3. Local track and trace teams in hazmat suits armed with swabs and rapid tests to carry out immediate or overnight testing of contacts. 4. Results from part three to be available immediately or overnight, reducing pre-symptomatic spread to a minimum level because of rapid results and isolation from point 2. 5. Rinse repeat.
That is a model that works and doesn't require a national lockdown.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
All valid. I still ask though whose model should we follow? And please not nz which has special characteristics. Which western nation is the one? Germany did well in the first wave, but they too are struggling with keeping the economy going and Covid suppressed. We all need to stiffen the resolve, lock ourselves down and do our bit. The problem with Covid is the spread before symptoms. That’s why it’s so hard for isolation of people. We also need to move away from pcr as the mass test. We need to use much more rapid tests, even if less accurate.
Why are you asking "which western nation"? We have as much to learn from eastern countries (both ones that have excelled and ones that have done badly) as we do from anywhere else.
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Yes, because she pretends to be something she isn't. She isn't dumb, being a senator from California means you have to appear more moderate if you want to play on the national stage. Doesn't change her voting record.
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
With all due respect, that's cherry picking data. If you look at the same source - Govtrack.us - and actually use the whole period for which Harris is a Senator, rather than just this year, then 'lo, it turns out she's not particularly liberal at all - certainly not compared to say Sanders or Warren.
She's not in favour of Medicare for All. She doesn't support abolishing ICE. She has been very critical of Defund the Police.
Come on @brokenwheel, do you genuinely believe she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders?
That's a really convoluted way of saying she's the most liberal-voting senator this year...
And why do you keep going on about what she "advocates"? That's not the question, it's the votes.
Sorry. But that's not how Govtrack works.
Govtrack looks at the number of bills you co-sponsor and how many of them are with members of the opposite party. It does not look at how you vote. If you want to look at how Senators vote then here's the data from 538: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
You will find - oh guess what - that Kamala Harris votes with the President far more than Sanders or Warren.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Very much true but not just confined to the UK
That's not a defence. I don't care what happens outside of our borders, I care about what happens here and the grim prospect of spending three months isolated from my family and friends again. The government had the chance to get ahead of all of this and through incompetence and plain old corruption (Dido, Serco) we're (my wife and I) not going to be able to spend Christmas with my sister, brother-in-law and niece as we've planned.
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
Better to isolate the few who have the virus properly than everyone badly.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Very much true but not just confined to the UK
That's not a defence. I don't care what happens outside of our borders, I care about what happens here and the grim prospect of spending three months isolated from my family and friends again. The government had the chance to get ahead of all of this and through incompetence and plain old corruption (Dido, Serco) we're (my wife and I) not going to be able to spend Christmas with my sister, brother-in-law and niece as we've planned.
To be honest I think it is because if Europe as a whole plus the US have not got on top of it then it indicates the scientific and political thinking across nations has failed
Our testing is not far from Germany's and better than most anywhere else other than the southern hemisphere and to start from zero 7 months ago to near 500,000 a day by the end of this month together with our investment in vaccine research should be complimented
As most posters know I am in favour of local lockdowns enforced if necesary with curfews but only a second national lockdown when everything else has failed.
There is an irony that the best time for a national lockdown is the Xmas - New Year holiday period
If you believe Nate Silver and the polls, then you definitely should be backing Biden at 5/6. It's a steal if the polls are right.
If...
It is a steal.
When can you think of a national election where the polls have been more than four points wrong in recent times?
2019 UK - basically right 2018 Midterms - basically right, maybe Dems very slightly underrated 2017 UK - Labour did three points better 2017 France - Macron outperformed by 1%, Le Pen underperformed by 1% 2016 - Brexit - Polls were four points out 2016 US - Polls were one point out 2012 US - Polls were three points out 2008 US - Polls were basically right
As the phrase goes "it's not a problem until it's a problem".
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
So what, if I may ask, is your betting position here? Because if the picture you are painting is even halfway correct, there is bound to be a massive shortening of Trump at some stage as the penny drops, allowing you to trade out of any bet you place now at a profit irrespective of the result. Even if you are wrong, you're right. Have you mortgaged your grandmother and if not, what's stopping you?
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
All valid. I still ask though whose model should we follow? And please not nz which has special characteristics. Which western nation is the one? Germany did well in the first wave, but they too are struggling with keeping the economy going and Covid suppressed. We all need to stiffen the resolve, lock ourselves down and do our bit. The problem with Covid is the spread before symptoms. That’s why it’s so hard for isolation of people. We also need to move away from pcr as the mass test. We need to use much more rapid tests, even if less accurate.
We need to make our own model.
1. Depends on 3 2. Increase the incentive to isolate, make breaking isolation impossible either through GPS tracking or by random daily checks carried out by local teams in hazmat suits and the ability to leverage punitive fines. 3. Local track and trace teams in hazmat suits armed with swabs and rapid tests to carry out immediate or overnight testing of contacts. 4. Results from part three to be available immediately or overnight, reducing pre-symptomatic spread to a minimum level because of rapid results and isolation from point 2. 5. Rinse repeat.
That is a model that works and doesn't require a national lockdown.
Beware unintended side-effects. If you slap a GPS tracker on people for testing positive, some will feel criminalised for being ill. There's ample evidence that mixing healthcare and law enforcement drives people away from seeking (official) healthcare channels. Also, if a hazmat team swoops down on your street, that will tend to frighten people. Would you open the door when they come knocking? Would everyone?
I don't mean to be down on your ideas, but I think you should be cautious about thinking the answer is quite as simple and you imply.
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
Better to isolate the few who have the virus properly than everyone badly.
New Zealand has just announced they will use centralised quarantine if they have any flare ups, and the usual suspects are accusing them of fascism/communism.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Big Doms observation that our intuitions aren't fit for purpose seems about right. His problem is he appears to be incredibly poor person to oversee any sort of reform.
My intuition is that he’s full of shit. Seems to have been borne out so far.
Or did you mean institutions ? In which case, he’s a wrecker, not a reformer.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Very much true but not just confined to the UK
That's not a defence. I don't care what happens outside of our borders, I care about what happens here and the grim prospect of spending three months isolated from my family and friends again. The government had the chance to get ahead of all of this and through incompetence and plain old corruption (Dido, Serco) we're (my wife and I) not going to be able to spend Christmas with my sister, brother-in-law and niece as we've planned.
We’ve got to stop looking at other countries. Your five step plan is of course right. But doing it in practice, in a liberal country with 67 m people, raises non-trivial problems at every point. For instance, number 2 is impossible to enforce and number 3 full of holes. Even if by some miracle we were successful and eradicate covid from our shores, it will be back again from countries which have been less successful in eradicating it. I keep coming back to thinking that life has a new danger that we will at some point have to face up to, with the consequences that that entails.
As an aside, I'm glad my business is in Arizona. During summer, the virus is rampant as everyone is inside, and during winter they can barbeque and eat outside and the virus recedes.
Do you sell life insurance policies with a watertight exclusion of deaths in months with no r in them? If not, why the rejoicing?
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Yes, because she pretends to be something she isn't. She isn't dumb, being a senator from California means you have to appear more moderate if you want to play on the national stage. Doesn't change her voting record.
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
With all due respect, that's cherry picking data. If you look at the same source - Govtrack.us - and actually use the whole period for which Harris is a Senator, rather than just this year, then 'lo, it turns out she's not particularly liberal at all - certainly not compared to say Sanders or Warren.
She's not in favour of Medicare for All. She doesn't support abolishing ICE. She has been very critical of Defund the Police.
Come on @brokenwheel, do you genuinely believe she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders?
That's a really convoluted way of saying she's the most liberal-voting senator this year...
And why do you keep going on about what she "advocates"? That's not the question, it's the votes.
Sorry. But that's not how Govtrack works.
Govtrack looks at the number of bills you co-sponsor and how many of them are with members of the opposite party. It does not look at how you vote. If you want to look at how Senators vote then here's the data from 538: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
You will find - oh guess what - that Kamala Harris votes with the President far more than Sanders or Warren.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
Big Doms observation that our intuitions aren't fit for purpose seems about right. His problem is he appears to be incredibly poor person to oversee any sort of reform.
My intuition is that he’s full of shit. Seems to have been borne out so far.
Or did you mean institutions ? In which case, he’s a wrecker, not a reformer.
Yes, of course I meant institutions. Not just Team Boris, it goes much wider, as Max says so many failures from so many different sectors. Frontline NHS seems to be the one very bright spot, when pushed to change their normal way of working* and rapidly expand capacity, they did so.
And as I said, he is the wrong person.
* does sort of beg the question why certain improvements have always got bogged down in the past.
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Yes, because she pretends to be something she isn't. She isn't dumb, being a senator from California means you have to appear more moderate if you want to play on the national stage. Doesn't change her voting record.
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
With all due respect, that's cherry picking data. If you look at the same source - Govtrack.us - and actually use the whole period for which Harris is a Senator, rather than just this year, then 'lo, it turns out she's not particularly liberal at all - certainly not compared to say Sanders or Warren.
She's not in favour of Medicare for All. She doesn't support abolishing ICE. She has been very critical of Defund the Police.
Come on @brokenwheel, do you genuinely believe she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders?
That's a really convoluted way of saying she's the most liberal-voting senator this year...
And why do you keep going on about what she "advocates"? That's not the question, it's the votes.
Sorry. But that's not how Govtrack works.
Govtrack looks at the number of bills you co-sponsor and how many of them are with members of the opposite party. It does not look at how you vote. If you want to look at how Senators vote then here's the data from 538: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
You will find - oh guess what - that Kamala Harris votes with the President far more than Sanders or Warren.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
All valid. I still ask though whose model should we follow? And please not nz which has special characteristics. Which western nation is the one? Germany did well in the first wave, but they too are struggling with keeping the economy going and Covid suppressed. We all need to stiffen the resolve, lock ourselves down and do our bit. The problem with Covid is the spread before symptoms. That’s why it’s so hard for isolation of people. We also need to move away from pcr as the mass test. We need to use much more rapid tests, even if less accurate.
We need to make our own model.
1. Depends on 3 2. Increase the incentive to isolate, make breaking isolation impossible either through GPS tracking or by random daily checks carried out by local teams in hazmat suits and the ability to leverage punitive fines. 3. Local track and trace teams in hazmat suits armed with swabs and rapid tests to carry out immediate or overnight testing of contacts. 4. Results from part three to be available immediately or overnight, reducing pre-symptomatic spread to a minimum level because of rapid results and isolation from point 2. 5. Rinse repeat.
That is a model that works and doesn't require a national lockdown.
Beware unintended side-effects. If you slap a GPS tracker on people for testing positive, some will feel criminalised for being ill. There's ample evidence that mixing healthcare and law enforcement drives people away from seeking (official) healthcare channels. Also, if a hazmat team swoops down on your street, that will tend to frighten people. Would you open the door when they come knocking? Would everyone?
I don't mean to be down on your ideas, but I think you should be cautious about thinking the answer is quite as simple and you imply.
Yes, I understand that the GPS tracker may not be acceptable which is why you have the random daily check as the alternative. Opening the door isn't a choice, taking the test also isn't a choice. The government has all of these emergency powers, it may as well use them properly and solve the actual problem of infected people not isolating.
Unfortunately we're in a situation where we can either remove the liberty of everyone for some indeterminate period of time or from people who have the virus for two weeks and pay them some reasonable compensation to accept the loss of it. Neither is ideal, however, the situation isn't ideal and this is where tough decisions need to be made. Ultimately anyone who bitches about it can bitch for two weeks if they get it or face punitive fines.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
If you believe Nate Silver and the polls, then you definitely should be backing Biden at 5/6. It's a steal if the polls are right.
If...
It is a steal.
When can you think of a national election where the polls have been more than four points wrong in recent times?
2019 UK - basically right 2018 Midterms - basically right, maybe Dems very slightly underrated 2017 UK - Labour did three points better 2017 France - Macron outperformed by 1%, Le Pen underperformed by 1% 2016 - Brexit - Polls were four points out 2016 US - Polls were one point out 2012 US - Polls were three points out 2008 US - Polls were basically right
As the phrase goes "it's not a problem until it's a problem".
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
So... You've just ignore the BMG poll with the 10 point leave lead then?
Well, as he’s talking about polls taken after Jo Cox’s murder, there isn’t a BMG poll to ignore
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
Better to isolate the few who have the virus properly than everyone badly.
New Zealand has just announced they will use centralised quarantine if they have any flare ups, and the usual suspects are accusing them of fascism/communism.
Fuck it, it's two weeks of someone's life. I'm sure they'll live.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Had a feeling this would be seen as anyone but Sir Keir’s fault
In that theamgreatness Florida poll is the following :
Already voted
Trump 36 Biden 83 Others 4
(Total 127)
5.2 million had voted at the start of the fieldwork, 6 million by the end date.
Remaining 2 party voters split 156 Trump / 92 Biden
Total 253
There's simply not that many voters left !
Yeah, a number of these polls have some literally impossible implied turnout numbers.
What I haven't worked out is if that is terrible for Trump (not enough voters to make up the gap) or bad for the poll (too many early voters in the sample)
Say an average of 5.6m people in FL had voted when that poll was conducted.
And assume 11.2m will vote this year (it was 9.4m in in 2016) - that would imply 77% turnout (75% in 2016).
Then approximately half the FL voters had voted by the time of this poll so their 'have voted' / 'yet to vote' sample sizes should have been even. Wheareas their 'yet to vote' (Trump leaning) sample was twice as large as the 'have voted' (Biden leaning) sample.
Yeah, Trump is fucked. I was just seeing if anyone would try some crazy maths to make it bad for Biden.
Giving even weighting to the 'have voted' / 'yet to vote' sample sizes in that poll gives a 51.1% to 44.1% lead to Biden.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Had a feeling this would be seen as anyone but Sir Keir’s fault
Amazing that some Italian airport making up a story about Boris turned out to be Boris' fault though.
Looks like Labour will have lot on their 'own plate' this Thursday at 11.00am when the ECHR is published
So much build up almost anything could be a damp squib, bizarrely.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
Starmer may well have to sack well known mps from Labour otherwise he will forever be embroiled with it
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Had a feeling this would be seen as anyone but Sir Keir’s fault
If you think what I said was absolving Starmer of any fault, it's only because you really really want it to be his fault.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
I agree with you, except I think you're too harsh on the opposition. Starmer has been banging on about taking pretty much exactly the steps you suggest at every PMQs for the last three months, to no avail. His idea of a circuit breaker now is as a last resort precisely because the government/Dido/Serco failed to get it right, leading to the virus getting out of control over the last month.
She didn't advocate Medicare for All when she was running for the Democratic nominee. Indeed, she was to the Right of everyone except perhaps Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden.
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders Warren And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
Yes, because she pretends to be something she isn't. She isn't dumb, being a senator from California means you have to appear more moderate if you want to play on the national stage. Doesn't change her voting record.
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
With all due respect, that's cherry picking data. If you look at the same source - Govtrack.us - and actually use the whole period for which Harris is a Senator, rather than just this year, then 'lo, it turns out she's not particularly liberal at all - certainly not compared to say Sanders or Warren.
She's not in favour of Medicare for All. She doesn't support abolishing ICE. She has been very critical of Defund the Police.
Come on @brokenwheel, do you genuinely believe she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders?
That's a really convoluted way of saying she's the most liberal-voting senator this year...
And why do you keep going on about what she "advocates"? That's not the question, it's the votes.
Sorry. But that's not how Govtrack works.
Govtrack looks at the number of bills you co-sponsor and how many of them are with members of the opposite party. It does not look at how you vote. If you want to look at how Senators vote then here's the data from 538: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
You will find - oh guess what - that Kamala Harris votes with the President far more than Sanders or Warren.
2-3% is a curious definition of far more!
That's about 30% more often!
30% of a small number is a small number.
It's clear even from Nate's figures that she is one of the most liberal senators, the moderate thing is a total act.
Looks like Labour will have lot on their 'own plate' this Thursday at 11.00am when the ECHR is published
So much build up almost anything could be a damp squib, bizarrely.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
Starmer may well have to sack well known mps from Labour otherwise he will forever be embroiled with it
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
I didn't know Bernard Manning style humour was coming back into fashion....a couple of weeks ago, it was kill whiteys, was the side splitting punch line, now...
Presenter Tom Price chuckled as comedian Leila Navabi accused Mr Sunak of “not representing most brown people”.
She went on to joke: “Rishi Sunak represents a lot of things for us as a society, not least what Prince Charles would look like in brownface.”
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Lazy victim-blaming of cyclists is still lazy victim-blaming of cyclists even when it's in the cause of defending the leader of the Labour Party from embarrassment.
Cycling is currently the best way for white males to find out what it's like to live as a persecuted minority - damn terrifying.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Had a feeling this would be seen as anyone but Sir Keir’s fault
If you think what I said was absolving Starmer of any fault, it's only because you really really want it to be his fault.
Looks like Labour will have lot on their 'own plate' this Thursday at 11.00am when the ECHR is published
So much build up almost anything could be a damp squib, bizarrely.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
Starmer may well have to sack well known mps from Labour otherwise he will forever be embroiled with it
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
I didn't know Bernard Manning style humour was coming back into fashion....a couple of weeks ago, it was kill whiteys, was the side splitting punch line, now...
Presenter Tom Price chuckled as comedian Leila Navabi accused Mr Sunak of “not representing most brown people”.
She went on to joke: “Rishi Sunak represents a lot of things for us as a society, not least what Prince Charles would look like in brownface.”
Well, she was right about the 50p coin thing that is referenced being virtue signalling, but this is codswallop A BBC spokesman said: “In this instance, we believe that the comedian, who was a guest on the programme, was suggesting that Prince Charles and the Chancellor have a passing resemblance.
Personally I cannot see the resemblance even in passing, but each to their own. Seems more likely when someone is upset about 'X not representing group Y' well enough they simply have very weird expectations of how people should behave based on their ethnicity.
And of course Tories will overreact to comments from a comedian, but my word as a society we can be clumsy on race, and send some very mixed signals about it not mattering, or mattering more than anything.
Looks like Labour will have lot on their 'own plate' this Thursday at 11.00am when the ECHR is published
So much build up almost anything could be a damp squib, bizarrely.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
Starmer may well have to sack well known mps from Labour otherwise he will forever be embroiled with it
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
I didn't know Bernard Manning style humour was coming back into fashion....a couple of weeks ago, it was kill whiteys, was the side splitting punch line, now...
Presenter Tom Price chuckled as comedian Leila Navabi accused Mr Sunak of “not representing most brown people”.
She went on to joke: “Rishi Sunak represents a lot of things for us as a society, not least what Prince Charles would look like in brownface.”
Looks like Labour will have lot on their 'own plate' this Thursday at 11.00am when the ECHR is published
So much build up almost anything could be a damp squib, bizarrely.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
Starmer may well have to sack well known mps from Labour otherwise he will forever be embroiled with it
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
I didn't know Bernard Manning style humour was coming back into fashion....a couple of weeks ago, it was kill whiteys, was the side splitting punch line, now...
Presenter Tom Price chuckled as comedian Leila Navabi accused Mr Sunak of “not representing most brown people”.
She went on to joke: “Rishi Sunak represents a lot of things for us as a society, not least what Prince Charles would look like in brownface.”
Well, she was right about the 50p coin thing that is referenced being virtue signalling, but this is codswallop A BBC spokesman said: “In this instance, we believe that the comedian, who was a guest on the programme, was suggesting that Prince Charles and the Chancellor have a passing resemblance.
Personally I cannot see the resemblance even in passing, but each to their own. Seems more likely when someone is upset about 'X not representing group Y' well enough they simply have very weird expectations of how people should behave based on their ethnicity.
And of course Tories will overreact to comments from a comedian, but my word as a society we can be clumsy on race, and send some very mixed signals about it not mattering, or mattering more than anything.
Comments
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13035369/joe-biden-kamala-harris-wife/
I'm not sure Biden would recover quite as quickly.
https://twitter.com/LostGlasgow/status/1321215902759723013?s=20
Things are so fucked at the moment up that when nature goes the extra mile I just feel that it's a portent of some future awfulness.
Enjoy it for what it is - magnificent
Your username suggests a science background, or is it just a memory of
Y8 physics lessons?
Let's take 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
Note two things:
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
You know who did support Medicare for all?
Sanders
Warren
And a bunch of other Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown.
I doubt that the PM could get any sort of lockdown, even a time-limited circuit breaker, through Parliament on Conservative votes right now, and he doesn't want to rely on opposition votes. So in that sense, you're right.
But.
As things stand, the infection rate is continuing to increase. Few, if any, parts of England have R meaningfully below 1. So- is there an infection rate where the nation has no choice but to lock down again, because the health implications are too horrible to contemplate? If so- what is it? If not- what is the plan?
Among other things for his calm insouciance in the face of Trumpian provocation.
Sod the election, can't we just see what the snake says on November 3rd?
https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1321206419387863041?s=21
I just posted a journalist quoting a non-partisan vote tracker to your question about evidence. What more is there to say?
That's the polling. Yes, there were plenty of polls showing Remain leads. But there were also plenty of polls that predicted Leave.
Not only that, but there was movement, sustained movement.
What have we not seen this time around?
Movement.
Given the limited COVID data, most models aren't using neural nets.
The key is to:
1. Find people with the virus
2. Isolate them properly
3. Find who they have been in contact with
4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus
5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
(Edit: My witty comment has been beaten)
What I haven't worked out is if that is terrible for Trump (not enough voters to make up the gap) or bad for the poll (too many early voters in the sample)
https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/266615-study-finds-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012
And yeah, it's more memories-from-school rather than any science profession; I'm one of those people blessed with a formidable memory, so excellent at learning stuff, but I am weak when it comes to research and casting facts into new knowledge. You need that spark of imagination and creativity to be a "real" scientist, which I do not have. So instead I'm just good at pub quizzes.
She's not in favour of Medicare for All. She doesn't support abolishing ICE. She has been very critical of Defund the Police.
Come on @brokenwheel, do you genuinely believe she is more liberal than Bernie Sanders?
Plausibly deniable incitement - as repeatedly with Whitmer.
And assume 11.2m will vote this year (it was 9.4m in in 2016) - that would imply 77% turnout (75% in 2016).
Then approximately half the FL voters had voted by the time of this poll so their 'have voted' / 'yet to vote' sample sizes should have been even. Wheareas their 'yet to vote' (Trump leaning) sample was twice as large as the 'have voted' (Biden leaning) sample.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmrRMK84GU4&t=1s&ab_channel=JustAutoInsurance
Feel free to watch and click "Like".
And why do you keep going on about what she "advocates"? That's not the question, it's the votes.
1. Depends on 3
2. Increase the incentive to isolate, make breaking isolation impossible either through GPS tracking or by random daily checks carried out by local teams in hazmat suits and the ability to leverage punitive fines.
3. Local track and trace teams in hazmat suits armed with swabs and rapid tests to carry out immediate or overnight testing of contacts.
4. Results from part three to be available immediately or overnight, reducing pre-symptomatic spread to a minimum level because of rapid results and isolation from point 2.
5. Rinse repeat.
That is a model that works and doesn't require a national lockdown.
Govtrack looks at the number of bills you co-sponsor and how many of them are with members of the opposite party. It does not look at how you vote. If you want to look at how Senators vote then here's the data from 538:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
You will find - oh guess what - that Kamala Harris votes with the President far more than Sanders or Warren.
Our testing is not far from Germany's and better than most anywhere else other than the southern hemisphere and to start from zero 7 months ago to near 500,000 a day by the end of this month together with our investment in vaccine research should be complimented
As most posters know I am in favour of local lockdowns enforced if necesary with curfews but only a second national lockdown when everything else has failed.
There is an irony that the best time for a national lockdown is the Xmas - New Year holiday period
Also, if a hazmat team swoops down on your street, that will tend to frighten people. Would you open the door when they come knocking? Would everyone?
I don't mean to be down on your ideas, but I think you should be cautious about thinking the answer is quite as simple and you imply.
Or did you mean institutions ?
In which case, he’s a wrecker, not a reformer.
I keep coming back to thinking that life has a new danger that we will at some point have to face up to, with the consequences that that entails.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8885945/Sir-Keir-Starmer-crashed-cyclist-trying-perform-u-turn-witnesses-claim.html
And as I said, he is the wrong person.
* does sort of beg the question why certain improvements have always got bogged down in the past.
The latest Trafalgar PA poll has cross breaks at the end of the slidea
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OILz8BjBnlIYfPo6ln-yMm6r12cUaVfp/view?usp=sharing
Trump winning the 18-24 year old vote!
Unfortunately we're in a situation where we can either remove the liberty of everyone for some indeterminate period of time or from people who have the virus for two weeks and pay them some reasonable compensation to accept the loss of it. Neither is ideal, however, the situation isn't ideal and this is where tough decisions need to be made. Ultimately anyone who bitches about it can bitch for two weeks if they get it or face punitive fines.
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
30% of a small number is a small number.
It's clear even from Nate's figures that she is one of the most liberal senators, the moderate thing is a total act.
Presenter Tom Price chuckled as comedian Leila Navabi accused Mr Sunak of “not representing most brown people”.
She went on to joke: “Rishi Sunak represents a lot of things for us as a society, not least what Prince Charles would look like in brownface.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13038895/bbc-race-row-rishi-sunak-prince-charles-brownface/
Cycling is currently the best way for white males to find out what it's like to live as a persecuted minority - damn terrifying.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
A BBC spokesman said: “In this instance, we believe that the comedian, who was a guest on the programme, was suggesting that Prince Charles and the Chancellor have a passing resemblance.
Personally I cannot see the resemblance even in passing, but each to their own. Seems more likely when someone is upset about 'X not representing group Y' well enough they simply have very weird expectations of how people should behave based on their ethnicity.
And of course Tories will overreact to comments from a comedian, but my word as a society we can be clumsy on race, and send some very mixed signals about it not mattering, or mattering more than anything.
https://twitter.com/shaunjcammack/status/1321161161111339009?s=19