The money shifts back to Biden on Betfair’s £240m next President market – politicalbetting.com
The final weekend before Tuesday’s election and a lot of activity on the UK betting markets where punters had been viewing Trump’s chances quite a bit better than the US data analysts.
BBC struggling to cope with the Boris delayed announcement, filling in desperately. But the report from Bradford says that 3 weeks of local lockdown has not, so far, stopped the number of cases from increasing. Which rather shows what nonsense 2 weeks is and was.
Just read the Spectator article from Fraser Nelson about the "reasonable" worst case SAGE prediction which is driving all this.
As he says the most telling thing is there is no Red team working to check against these predictions. No one else at the heart of government is modelling as an alternative to SAGE. Government expects to plan around the reasonable worst case and the only available such case is SAGE and their modelling team.
The data and the modelling codes should be placed on github.
It is, coders had at it and updated it to C++, but it still doesn't use best practice wrt population behaviour which is ML.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
This is the problem with people who don't understand scientific method. Convincing simpletons with big numbers is easy and that's what the scientists are doing right now.
I did actually draft a thread header on the current schools situation and what could or couldn’t be done, what is likely to happen next and what the implications are.
It’s out of date because I wrote it yesterday, but if OGH would be interested I could still send it in.
If we close the schools can we keep the non essential businesses open?
The problem is, from the research I was doing, is that closing down the rest of the country is not likely to be especially effective if secondary and tertiary education is kept open under current conditions.
So you end up with a trashed economy *and* still get thousands of deaths.
Agreed. We are going to have to find a way of living with this virus. Protect the old and infirm. Shield. Risk segmentation. Don’t close down schools and ruin businesses. Pathetic leadership by Boris and his clownocracy.
What a contradiction between their name and their proposed action
In fairness their representative explained that the number of secondary school pupils with the virus has increased 50 fold in the last month and is now 2% of all kids. They don’t get ill on the whole but they go home to their families and live in their communities. I am desperate for the schools to stay open but if his numbers are right it was a point well made.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
Agreed. We are going to have to find a way of living with this virus. Protect the old and infirm. Shield. Risk segmentation. Don’t close down schools and ruin businesses. Pathetic leadership by Boris and his clownocracy.
I don't agree with your proposal but I absolutely agree with your diagnosis of Shagger. I don't get it. Either we're going to have the big lockdown because we need it, or to do so would be a disaster. You can't say its a terrible idea and then say you're doing it.
If we close the schools can we keep the non essential businesses open?
The problem is, from the research I was doing, is that closing down the rest of the country is not likely to be especially effective if secondary and tertiary education is kept open under current conditions.
So you end up with a trashed economy *and* still get thousands of deaths.
And fuck up children's lives in many and varied ways.
If we close the schools can we keep the non essential businesses open?
The problem is, from the research I was doing, is that closing down the rest of the country is not likely to be especially effective if secondary and tertiary education is kept open under current conditions.
So you end up with a trashed economy *and* still get thousands of deaths.
As far as I can tell, schools are open everywhere, but areas have widely different rates of infection, so schools aren't the main cause, are they?
What a contradiction between their name and their proposed action
In fairness their representative explained that the number of secondary school pupils with the virus has increased 50 fold in the last month and is now 2% of all kids. They don’t get ill on the whole but they go home to their families and live in their communities. I am desperate for the schools to stay open but if his numbers are right it was a point well made.
Of my 4 grandchildren 3 have been sent home from school unwell and all three had a seasonal cold
Just read the Spectator article from Fraser Nelson about the "reasonable" worst case SAGE prediction which is driving all this.
As he says the most telling thing is there is no Red team working to check against these predictions. No one else at the heart of government is modelling as an alternative to SAGE. Government expects to plan around the reasonable worst case and the only available such case is SAGE and their modelling team.
The data and the modelling codes should be placed on github.
It is, coders had at it and updated it to C++, but it still doesn't use best practice wrt population behaviour which is ML.
I am talking about specifically the PHE/Cambridge projection that seems to be driving the current panic.
This is the one that predicts a mean of 4000 deaths per day by Dec 20th, and 1 sigma upper bound of 7000 daily deaths, based on the graph from Laura Kuenssberg's tweet.
Is the data, and the modelling code that informs that prediction, in the public domain?
I didn't think so, but if you can point me to it, I'd be very interested.
Just read the Spectator article from Fraser Nelson about the "reasonable" worst case SAGE prediction which is driving all this.
As he says the most telling thing is there is no Red team working to check against these predictions. No one else at the heart of government is modelling as an alternative to SAGE. Government expects to plan around the reasonable worst case and the only available such case is SAGE and their modelling team.
The data and the modelling codes should be placed on github.
It is, coders had at it and updated it to C++, but it still doesn't use best practice wrt population behaviour which is ML.
I am talking about specifically the PHE/Cambridge projection that seems to be driving the current panic.
This is the one that predicts a mean of 4000 deaths per day by Dec 20th, and 1 sigma upper bound of 7000 daily deaths, based on the graph from Laura Kuenssberg's tweet.
Is the data, and the modelling code that informs that prediction, in the public domain?
I didn't think so, but if you can point me to it, I'd be very interested.
What a contradiction between their name and their proposed action
In fairness their representative explained that the number of secondary school pupils with the virus has increased 50 fold in the last month and is now 2% of all kids. They don’t get ill on the whole but they go home to their families and live in their communities. I am desperate for the schools to stay open but if his numbers are right it was a point well made.
Of my 4 grandchildren 3 have been sent home from school unwell and all three had a seasonal cold
His data apparently came from the ONS and referred to confirmed cases.
If we close the schools can we keep the non essential businesses open?
The problem is, from the research I was doing, is that closing down the rest of the country is not likely to be especially effective if secondary and tertiary education is kept open under current conditions.
So you end up with a trashed economy *and* still get thousands of deaths.
As far as I can tell, schools are open everywhere, but areas have widely different rates of infection, so schools aren't the main cause, are they?
Clearly, you can’t tell very far. Two independent studies have put educational settings as responsible for about a quarter of all transmission, with rumours of a third study today.
Of course rates also vary for other reasons. But if you think it’s possible to control that rate of reinfection, I have a bridge to sell you.
There are ways it could be done, but the current approach has completely failed and a new one is needed. And unfortunately, it seems unlikely a new approach would work on its own without getting R down, because the thing about educational settings is that while there are ways of keeping the number low, it’s bloody difficult to get the number low while they’re open.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
What a contradiction between their name and their proposed action
In fairness their representative explained that the number of secondary school pupils with the virus has increased 50 fold in the last month and is now 2% of all kids. They don’t get ill on the whole but they go home to their families and live in their communities. I am desperate for the schools to stay open but if his numbers are right it was a point well made.
Of my 4 grandchildren 3 have been sent home from school unwell and all three had a seasonal cold
His data apparently came from the ONS and referred to confirmed cases.
Has it been delayed from 6:30 or should it start any minute now?
It's Zeno's press conference. By the time the hour is up, the start time has moved back half an hour. We'll never actually get the press conference, but we'll get very, very close.
I stand by saying he has an about 97% (3+ on 2d6) chance of winning given the voting numbers and polls.
Only a catastrophic systemic failure can mean Trump wins now. Without a systemic failure he has lost, no ifs or buts.
Republican control of the Senate means that they have appointed the Federal judiciary more widely, as well as the Supreme Court. They are trying to steal this by using those judges to throw out Democrat votes. How confident are you that won't work?
Now, as the header suggests, it is ostensibly about Black / Hispanic turnout, but note the last sentence (which isn't expanded on):
"In Florida, half of Latino and Black registered voters have not yet voted but more than half of White voters have cast ballots, according to data from Catalist, a Democratic data firm. In Pennsylvania, nearly 75% of registered Black voters have not yet voted, the data shows.
The firm’s analysis of early vote numbers also show a surge of non-college educated White voters"
That is also been seen elsewhere. Jon Ralston looks to be calling Nevada for the Democrats. I will defer to him as the expert there (although I have a few questions) but he has to up his figures for how well Trump is likely to do in the rural areas there. He thought c. 50K lead for Trump at the start but now is thinking 80K or possibly more because of the scale of the turnout. That is likely to be white non-college voters. If that is the case, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the pollsters' assumptions re the weighting of the category is also wrong because it will be based on 2016 turnout
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
The one aspect of Sweden's approach that should have been followed was the idea that no quick fix, no vaccine in a few months, so plan for 2 years and stick to it, no stop / start / relax when things look a bit better.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
In Sweden, schools are smaller. So are classes. They’re comparable to the size of private school classes in this country. But classrooms are not. So you can maintain at least some distance.
We are now paying the price - or at least, yet another price - for the ‘cram them in like sardines in a tin’ policy pursued by successive governments since 1870.
I stand by saying he has an about 97% (3+ on 2d6) chance of winning given the voting numbers and polls.
Only a catastrophic systemic failure can mean Trump wins now. Without a systemic failure he has lost, no ifs or buts.
Republican control of the Senate means that they have appointed the Federal judiciary more widely, as well as the Supreme Court. They are trying to steal this by using those judges to throw out Democrat votes. How confident are you that won't work?
That's part of the 3%. It would be a catastrophic systemic failure and end of America as a democracy if they get away with that.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
Once again: You need to forget population density and think about degree of urbanisation (which is actually higher in Sweden than the UK).
What a contradiction between their name and their proposed action
In fairness their representative explained that the number of secondary school pupils with the virus has increased 50 fold in the last month and is now 2% of all kids. They don’t get ill on the whole but they go home to their families and live in their communities. I am desperate for the schools to stay open but if his numbers are right it was a point well made.
Of my 4 grandchildren 3 have been sent home from school unwell and all three had a seasonal cold
Of the private schools I know of, several have sent class "bubbles" home for 2 weeks etc, but the rest of the school keeps going. From talking to the teachers, it's tough, but nowhere near breaking point for them, yet. Interestingly, the one that sucks at online teaching hasn't uped it's game, despite a lot of complaints from parents.
The free school seems to be in a similar position - their online teaching methodology seems more about setting work and then getting results, rather than the teacher video presenting for the length of the whole class.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
My view too. However, in the case of Universities it was scuppered by their financial interest in getting the students back (or, more charitably to the sector, by the governments refusal to support universities financially).
I would think the same should apply to sixth forms at least. However, one thing I note is that everyone is so *certain* that they know what should be done. I rather think that we should all be *uncertain* about what should be done, as so many facts are still fuzzy.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
The one aspect of Sweden's approach that should have been followed was the idea that no quick fix, no vaccine in a few months, so plan for 2 years and stick to it, no stop / start / relax when things look a bit better.
Which works there because the base R in Sweden is lower than it is here because it has a lower population density and a less social culture. Sweden is social distancing the nation.
Have to laugh. As the PM is soooooo late and everything has been leaked the BBC are filling airtime by telling everyone what the PM is going to announce before he announces it.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
Once again: You need to forget population density and think about degree of urbanisation (which is actually higher in Sweden than the UK).
No you don't that's nonsense. Urbanisation isn't higher than in the UK.
The thing is the UK is so dense that we draw distinctions without a difference. Greater Manchester is a different city to Liverpool, towns in-between like Warrington are different too. But they are actually one contiguous urban area. There's no natural break between them like there is in other countries.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
The one aspect of Sweden's approach that should have been followed was the idea that no quick fix, no vaccine in a few months, so plan for 2 years and stick to it, no stop / start / relax when things look a bit better.
Which works there because the base R in Sweden is lower than it is here because it has a lower population density and a less social culture. Sweden is social distancing the nation.
Not been partying in Stockholm then.
Edit: but please be aware imo your analysis on the covid situation has been a highlight of this site.
Had to switch from the BBC when yet another ignoramus explains that we didn’t train up enough icu staff over the summer (!!) and we are in this position because the NHS is so underfunded (highest ever level of spending but whatever). None of this wittering challenged or mocked of course.
The PM better hurry up and get this news conference done by 7 10pm otherwise he will push back Strictly and that really will see his poll rating plunge
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
The one aspect of Sweden's approach that should have been followed was the idea that no quick fix, no vaccine in a few months, so plan for 2 years and stick to it, no stop / start / relax when things look a bit better.
Which works there because the base R in Sweden is lower than it is here because it has a lower population density and a less social culture. Sweden is social distancing the nation.
So does this all mean I'm too late to get my hair cut before lockdown?
That must be one of the best ways to ensure alignment (have/ not have) with another person. The loss of the outward appearances are meaningless though. It's not so much that you, or your barber are at risk, but the people you may through that contact may be.
I regret my currently shabby appearance, but it's self-administered clippering for me for some time forwards. (It's actually quite fun, although when you look in the mirror not so much)
Have to laugh. As the PM is soooooo late and everything has been leaked the BBC are filling airtime by telling everyone what the PM is going to announce before he announces it.
He could come on and say: "Hey chaps, you'll never believe this but I've just seen on the news that we're having another lockdown apparently..."
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
The one aspect of Sweden's approach that should have been followed was the idea that no quick fix, no vaccine in a few months, so plan for 2 years and stick to it, no stop / start / relax when things look a bit better.
Which works there because the base R in Sweden is lower than it is here because it has a lower population density and a less social culture. Sweden is social distancing the nation.
Saw some data that showed the transmission rates in education settings, having a lockdown and not closing schools and unis is like using a condom with holes in both ends.
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
Which is why lockdown as a concept doesn't work. We need to keep schools and supermarkets open, those two things together plus healthcare and other basic services add up to an R of over 1 already. There is no combination of things we can keep open that includes schools that doesn't have an R over 1. So we need a different way of doing this.
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
I don't think that's necessarily true: in Sweden schools were kept open (albeit universities and older kids went on-line), while there were a reasonable number of other restrictions.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
Sweden isn't exactly an example that should be held up as worth following, with our population density and social nature their death rate would be more than double what it is IMO.
When the Swedes were told to stay two metres apart they wondered why they had to be closer together than normal.
What a contradiction between their name and their proposed action
In fairness their representative explained that the number of secondary school pupils with the virus has increased 50 fold in the last month and is now 2% of all kids. They don’t get ill on the whole but they go home to their families and live in their communities. I am desperate for the schools to stay open but if his numbers are right it was a point well made.
Of my 4 grandchildren 3 have been sent home from school unwell and all three had a seasonal cold
Of the private schools I know of, several have sent class "bubbles" home for 2 weeks etc, but the rest of the school keeps going. From talking to the teachers, it's tough, but nowhere near breaking point for them, yet. Interestingly, the one that sucks at online teaching hasn't uped it's game, despite a lot of complaints from parents.
The free school seems to be in a similar position - their online teaching methodology seems more about setting work and then getting results, rather than the teacher video presenting for the length of the whole class.
Private schools are smaller. Their classes are smaller. The children have bigger houses and more opportunities to remain distant by using tech to see friends. Finally, they tend to be more divorced from the surrounding area as they often don’t go to school in it.
The question needs to be - how can we replicate that in the state sector, where those don’t apply? Because at the moment this isn’t happening. And it needs to, for social, economic, and above all educational reasons.
Comments
From a pure epidemiological POV it is a no brainer.
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1322598253741920256?s=20
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1322596524002594816?s=20
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1322599799699492864?s=20
https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1322565277050048514?s=20
https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1322581506007670785?s=20
It’s out of date because I wrote it yesterday, but if OGH would be interested I could still send it in.
So you end up with a trashed economy *and* still get thousands of deaths.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1322602843661021184
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1322603265322848256
We're using a broad measure of stopping some forms of interaction to reduce the overall R, it's an untargeted method which causes a lot of secondary damage. It also doesn't work because stopping interaction in public just drives the same interaction into front rooms which are impossible to police.
There is no form of lockdown that will make any kind of difference in this country, not without closing schools and that is an unacceptable cost and needs to be avoided even if it means more deaths than would otherwise happen.
The only way to resolve this is targeted measures to stop people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. There is no other way to do it, none. Everything else is going to fail and cost the nation more than just money.
Now on page 6 and 7 of 7 when 2 days ago they were both on page 2 of 7
Looks like all I have missed is some panic.
(*Delete according to your class preference)
I will agree however that it is substandard compared to usual teaching.
But that pales really compared to the health implications of trying to keep going as we are.
This is telling and in a swing state. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinCate/status/1321864407329230851
This is very good.
I stand by saying he has an about 97% (3+ on 2d6) chance of winning given the voting numbers and polls.
Only a catastrophic systemic failure can mean Trump wins now. Without a systemic failure he has lost, no ifs or buts.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-covid-lockdown-tier-3-cases-deaths/
Italy 5-34 England
This is the one that predicts a mean of 4000 deaths per day by Dec 20th, and 1 sigma upper bound of 7000 daily deaths, based on the graph from Laura Kuenssberg's tweet.
Is the data, and the modelling code that informs that prediction, in the public domain?
I didn't think so, but if you can point me to it, I'd be very interested.
Of course rates also vary for other reasons. But if you think it’s possible to control that rate of reinfection, I have a bridge to sell you.
There are ways it could be done, but the current approach has completely failed and a new one is needed. And unfortunately, it seems unlikely a new approach would work on its own without getting R down, because the thing about educational settings is that while there are ways of keeping the number low, it’s bloody difficult to get the number low while they’re open.
And I think it would have been sensible to do something similar in the UK - kept Universities on-line until January, and bring schools back from youngest to oldest. Doing it all in one go meant that you didn't go from R of 1 to 1.2, but from 1 to 3.
The D lead in early voting is now sub 100K. What should be more worrying though for Biden (and the pollsters) is explained here in a Bloomberg:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-aides-see-warning-signs-in-black-latino-turnout-so-far/ar-BB1ayfa6
Now, as the header suggests, it is ostensibly about Black / Hispanic turnout, but note the last sentence (which isn't expanded on):
"In Florida, half of Latino and Black registered voters have not yet voted but more than half of White voters have cast ballots, according to data from Catalist, a Democratic data firm. In Pennsylvania, nearly 75% of registered Black voters have not yet voted, the data shows.
The firm’s analysis of early vote numbers also show a surge of non-college educated White voters"
That is also been seen elsewhere. Jon Ralston looks to be calling Nevada for the Democrats. I will defer to him as the expert there (although I have a few questions) but he has to up his figures for how well Trump is likely to do in the rural areas there. He thought c. 50K lead for Trump at the start but now is thinking 80K or possibly more because of the scale of the turnout. That is likely to be white non-college voters. If that is the case, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the pollsters' assumptions re the weighting of the category is also wrong because it will be based on 2016 turnout
We are now paying the price - or at least, yet another price - for the ‘cram them in like sardines in a tin’ policy pursued by successive governments since 1870.
The free school seems to be in a similar position - their online teaching methodology seems more about setting work and then getting results, rather than the teacher video presenting for the length of the whole class.
I would think the same should apply to sixth forms at least. However, one thing I note is that everyone is so *certain* that they know what should be done. I rather think that we should all be *uncertain* about what should be done, as so many facts are still fuzzy.
--AS
The thing is the UK is so dense that we draw distinctions without a difference. Greater Manchester is a different city to Liverpool, towns in-between like Warrington are different too. But they are actually one contiguous urban area. There's no natural break between them like there is in other countries.
Edit: but please be aware imo your analysis on the covid situation has been a highlight of this site.
I regret my currently shabby appearance, but it's self-administered clippering for me for some time forwards. (It's actually quite fun, although when you look in the mirror not so much)
The question needs to be - how can we replicate that in the state sector, where those don’t apply? Because at the moment this isn’t happening. And it needs to, for social, economic, and above all educational reasons.