Howdy, Stranger!

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

The money shifts back to Biden on Betfair’s £240m next President market – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited October 2020 in General
imageThe 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.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • First like Biden, I hope.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    Markets finally recognising the data?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,934
    Third.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Meanwhile we wait for Boris's much delayed press conference.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    He's been Biden his time.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,934
    Na, Boris just threatened to cancel Brexit if he didn't toe the line.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    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.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    If we close the schools can we keep the non essential businesses open?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410
    Sainsbury's website down. As is Mo Salah yet again I see.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,176
    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    In four weeks time I expect the government will be faced with a choice: more deaths or no schools.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,669
    edited October 2020
    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,220
    edited October 2020
    There's a cliff edge for that Trump price to fall off. C'mon. Not too late to take the plunge before Tuesday. Jump!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    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.
  • What a contradiction between their name and their proposed action
  • Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    I agree though I would support closing universities and moving to online. Schools need to be open (unless things get much worse)
  • Saturday is moving day...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    @HYUFD Did Harris get those trainers off Marty McFly?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited October 2020
    alex_ said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    Teaching in secondary schools is currently a farce. At the moment full closure would seem better than the current "full" open.
  • @HYUFD Did Harris get those trainers off Marty McFly?

    From me, I'm the fashion and image consultant to the Biden/Harris campaign.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487

    @HYUFD Did Harris get those trainers off Marty McFly?

    From me, I'm the fashion and image consultant to the Biden/Harris campaign.
    Harris dresses quite well, to be fair.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    I am concerned that Broward and Miami Dade have dropped right to the bottom of the % returned rates in Florida on 72 & 69. of 2006 votes

    Now on page 6 and 7 of 7 when 2 days ago they were both on page 2 of 7
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,685
    Glad I decided not to delay tea/dinner/supper* to watch the PM's presser.

    Looks like all I have missed is some panic.

    (*Delete according to your class preference)
  • RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Alistair said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    Teaching in secondary schools is currently a farce. At the moment full closure would seem better than the current "full" open.
    I wouldn’t agree with that. My teaching face to face is better than the online teaching I provided, and I was considered very good at that.

    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.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    FPT
    This is telling and in a swing state. https://mobile.twitter.com/KevinCate/status/1321864407329230851
  • DavidL said:

    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
  • Still remarkable value on Biden.

    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.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited October 2020
  • What time are we expecting the announcement now?
  • Its better than the alternative plan - that GOP Militiamen simply start shooting at black voters in Democratic areas
  • What time are we expecting the announcement now?

    Sometime tonight but when, who knows
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,425
    Trump has been telling us this is what he would do. Were the Democrats listening? Will they be able to stop it?
  • I see England's catastrophic Rugby Union performance against Italy is panning out as predicted.

    Italy 5-34 England
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    MaxPB said:

    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.
  • Has it been delayed from 6:30 or should it start any minute now?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Rock concert. They are trying to sober Johnson up enough to go on stage, and not take his dick out like Jim Morrison.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    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.
    No, that isn't.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    ydoethur said:

    alex_ said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • So does this all mean I'm too late to get my hair cut before lockdown?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676

    Has it been delayed from 6:30 or should it start any minute now?

    Its been delayed from 4pm 5pm and 6.30pm so far
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    It is confusing to be fair
  • Roy_G_BivRoy_G_Biv Posts: 998
    edited October 2020

    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.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,425

    Still remarkable value on Biden.

    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?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    DavidL said:
    It won't make a blind bit of difference.

    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

  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,951

    What time are we expecting the announcement now?

    I'd genuinely love it if he came out and delivered a "nothing has changed" speech (copyright Theresa May, 2016-2019).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • Still remarkable value on Biden.

    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.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,685
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    BBC having to waffle on whilst Bozo wibbles about behind the scenes
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.

    --AS
  • Is Cummings doing this press conference then? The mega repeated delays reminds me of that "oh fuck how do we spin this" shitshow
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221
    edited October 2020

    I see England's catastrophic Rugby Union performance against Italy is panning out as predicted.

    Italy 5-34 England

    Good solid win in the end. But what chance the Frogs will just throw the game to Ireland, simply to spite the English?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 2,221
    Volanic, ooo-oooh, cantarayyyy, oh oh oh oh
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,685
    Is Boris too busy watching the rugger?
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 682

    @HYUFD Did Harris get those trainers off Marty McFly?

    From me, I'm the fashion and image consultant to the Biden/Harris campaign.
    Trump landslide .... :smiley:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited October 2020
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    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.
  • “For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen.”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,132
    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
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
    I have, and Lund. It's weird.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,770

    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)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,685
    edited October 2020

    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..."
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
    I have, and Lund. It's weird.
    Pls see my edited post!
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    Closing schools again would be a disaster.
    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    6.50
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • Here we go
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,132
    And with that he arrives
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    TOPPING said:

    6.50

    6.51
  • Finally.
This discussion has been closed.