F1: Ladbrokes has a 2021 market up (teams). Most tempting for me is Ferrari at 11 and McLaren at 81.
Red Bull believe they can change the car sufficiently with the interseason rule changes to get on par with Mercedes. But they still need a good number two driver and we don't know who that will be.
Ferrari's deficit is substantially due to the engine nonsense, which shouldn't recur next year, and Leclerc/Sainz will be a strong lineup. However, McLaren's also a dark horse, having improved significantly in recent years and with a great new driver in Ricciardo.
Haven't bet yet. Might be one for a free bet.
Some good trading bets there. The problem is that I'd take anything better than 1.1 on Mercedes winning again in 2021.
Its been a good season - better than it probably would have been without the pox disruption. For me the big unknown in the drivers market is will Lewis Hamilton retire? Go out at the top, spin off your brand when you are at legend status.
2021 could be a lot of fun. Yes I expect it to be another Mercedes walkover, but underneath there are plenty of things to change: 1. Verstappen / Hulkenberg in upgrades Red Bulls will be quite a thing. Will Red Bull buy out Honda's engine design / team to go manufacturer for 2022? 2. Ferrari with an engine that has power with Leclerc / Sainz will keep Red Bull honest 3. McLaren have made huge strides. Expect more with Danny Ric alongside Norris
We need to find a seat for Perez. If Hamilton does retire then I'm sure he will be linked to it, but I can't see it. Nor can I see George Russell making that kind of step up if Mercedes pay out the cash to get him released by Williams.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.
Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
Wrong.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.
Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
Wrong.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
I can't remember how many times I have posted this but the life expectancy for an 80 year old is 10 years. For an obese 80 year old man with heart disease it is 5 years.
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
You are STILL telling lies. Here's a copy of Betfair's history of bets as of this morning, clearly showing that the highest matched odds on this market was 2.6, this equates to fractional odds of 1.6/1 or 8/5, before the Exchange's 5% commission. The last matched price is shown as being 2.0 i.e. Evens.
Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6 On this market:£1,632 On this selection:£1,175 Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
No, why do you think the scientists are lying? What is in it for them?
They are a bunch of clowns, they have been wrong since the beginning , have you seen any of their previous forecasts that were anywhere near reality. They may have fancy titles but they are clowns.
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
F1: Ladbrokes has a 2021 market up (teams). Most tempting for me is Ferrari at 11 and McLaren at 81.
Red Bull believe they can change the car sufficiently with the interseason rule changes to get on par with Mercedes. But they still need a good number two driver and we don't know who that will be.
Ferrari's deficit is substantially due to the engine nonsense, which shouldn't recur next year, and Leclerc/Sainz will be a strong lineup. However, McLaren's also a dark horse, having improved significantly in recent years and with a great new driver in Ricciardo.
Haven't bet yet. Might be one for a free bet.
Some good trading bets there. The problem is that I'd take anything better than 1.1 on Mercedes winning again in 2021.
Its been a good season - better than it probably would have been without the pox disruption. For me the big unknown in the drivers market is will Lewis Hamilton retire? Go out at the top, spin off your brand when you are at legend status.
2021 could be a lot of fun. Yes I expect it to be another Mercedes walkover, but underneath there are plenty of things to change: 1. Verstappen / Hulkenberg in upgrades Red Bulls will be quite a thing. Will Red Bull buy out Honda's engine design / team to go manufacturer for 2022? 2. Ferrari with an engine that has power with Leclerc / Sainz will keep Red Bull honest 3. McLaren have made huge strides. Expect more with Danny Ric alongside Norris
We need to find a seat for Perez. If Hamilton does retire then I'm sure he will be linked to it, but I can't see it. Nor can I see George Russell making that kind of step up if Mercedes pay out the cash to get him released by Williams.
It's been a great season, thanks to a huge effort from everyone to actually get it running, alongside a number of 'new' tracks which have been old-school and produced much better racing then many of the Tilke-dromes we see in rich places around the world. I hope that F1 are listening to the feedback of the fans and drivers about the 'new' tracks; clearly it's not great for financial reasons to repeat what's happened this season, but there's room for a 'bonus' race or two where a great classic circuit is as important a consideration as a large hosting fee
I think Toto and Lewis are both having serious thoughts about their future, having achieved so much. My guess is that Toto moves to a wider role within Daimler group and LH stays on one more year to attempt an eighth title. If for some reason LH does walk away, Mercedes will have to buy out someone and it may be that Russell is their only realistic option, as was Bottas four years ago.
Mercedes yesterday showed Red Bull why the latter team needs two competitive drivers, they were able to double-team Max on the strategy to the detriment of the Dutchman.
Hulk goes to Red Bull, and Perez to Haas, is the best guess at the moment. Albon's getting fired after another throwing away of points yesterday, whether he goes completely or Kvyat makes way for him back at AT is another unknown. On yesterday's performance Kvyat deserves the seat.
There's a good chance of a three-way battle for second next year, between Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.
Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
Wrong.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
Quite. I'm currently reading...... well using for family history research 'The Diary of Thomas Jenkins of Llandeilo 1826-1870". Jenkins was a carpenter, among other things, and frequently records making coffins. It's horrifying, to someone living today, how many were for children. Two (IIRC) of his own children died in childhood. Scarlet fever was a frequent killer, and has been pretty well wiped out in the West with antibiotics.
F1: Ladbrokes has a 2021 market up (teams). Most tempting for me is Ferrari at 11 and McLaren at 81.
Red Bull believe they can change the car sufficiently with the interseason rule changes to get on par with Mercedes. But they still need a good number two driver and we don't know who that will be.
Ferrari's deficit is substantially due to the engine nonsense, which shouldn't recur next year, and Leclerc/Sainz will be a strong lineup. However, McLaren's also a dark horse, having improved significantly in recent years and with a great new driver in Ricciardo.
Haven't bet yet. Might be one for a free bet.
Some good trading bets there. The problem is that I'd take anything better than 1.1 on Mercedes winning again in 2021.
Its been a good season - better than it probably would have been without the pox disruption. For me the big unknown in the drivers market is will Lewis Hamilton retire? Go out at the top, spin off your brand when you are at legend status.
2021 could be a lot of fun. Yes I expect it to be another Mercedes walkover, but underneath there are plenty of things to change: 1. Verstappen / Hulkenberg in upgrades Red Bulls will be quite a thing. Will Red Bull buy out Honda's engine design / team to go manufacturer for 2022? 2. Ferrari with an engine that has power with Leclerc / Sainz will keep Red Bull honest 3. McLaren have made huge strides. Expect more with Danny Ric alongside Norris
We need to find a seat for Perez. If Hamilton does retire then I'm sure he will be linked to it, but I can't see it. Nor can I see George Russell making that kind of step up if Mercedes pay out the cash to get him released by Williams.
It's been a great season, thanks to a huge effort from everyone to actually get it running, alongside a number of 'new' tracks which have been old-school and produced much better racing then many of the Tilke-dromes we see in rich places around the world. I hope that F1 are listening to the feedback of the fans and drivers about the 'new' tracks; clearly it's not great for financial reasons to repeat what's happened this season, but there's room for a 'bonus' race or two where a great classic circuit is as important a consideration as a large hosting fee
I think Toto and Lewis are both having serious thoughts about their future, having achieved so much. My guess is that Toto moves to a wider role within Daimler group and LH stays on one more year to attempt an eighth title. If for some reason LH does walk away, Mercedes will have to buy out someone and it may be that Russell is their only realistic option, as was Bottas four years ago.
Mercedes yesterday showed Red Bull why the latter team needs two competitive drivers, they were able to double-team Max on the strategy to the detriment of the Dutchman.
Hulk goes to Red Bull, and Perez to Haas, is the best guess at the moment. Albon's getting fired after another throwing away of points yesterday, whether he goes completely or Kvyat makes way for him back at AT is another unknown. On yesterday's performance Kvyat deserves the seat.
There's a good chance of a three-way battle for second next year, between Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren.
I haven't understood Albon at all. He was unremarkable at Toro Rosso and is slow at Red Bull. Yes he has pulled off some banzai moves round the outside in a couple of races. But on tracks where you can't do that? He's slow. With Red Bull as ruthless as they are if they can get a replacement in that seat for the final races I expect them to do so.
As Ferrari should have done with Vettel. He hasn't been interested all season, blamed the car a few races in, should have been fired. A wodge of cash to McLaren to get Sainz early would have been worth it for them.
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
To be fair to OGH, I think the problem lies more with Twitter, who simply can't afford the infrastructure to keep their own site running properly. I'm expecting it to fall over completely at some point in the next couple of days.
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
To be fair to OGH, I think the problem lies more with Twitter, who simply can't afford the infrastructure to keep their own site running properly. I'm expecting it to fall over completely at some point in the next couple of days.
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
Yes, I agree with you, and I hope that I did not appear critical of Mike, because that was not my intention.
I don't know whether is possible for admins to disable or restrict Twitter within Vanilla, but suspect it may not be.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.
Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
Wrong.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
It's an argument very few people would make publicly, but one does hear it an awful lot privately.
Good morning everyone. I think the best thing one can say about this morning, at least her, is that it's not actually raining! I'm clinging to the hope that by Thursday Trump will have accepted defeat and there will be at least some good news. And, on a personal note, that our niece will be really be on the mend from her attack of Covid-19.
Down here in the front line - against the wind, at least - we have yet another day of 40-50mph winds. Although the rest of the week may at last bring a respite to the relentless breeze.
I can cope with wind, just about, although I shall not be sorry when the tree surgeon comes to work on the apparently elderly silver birch in the garden.
I am also waiting on the local "tree surgeon" (aka Devon lads with chainsaws), to take down much of the ash die-back infected branches hanging above the domestic oil tank...
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?
Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange. I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet. It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
Good morning everyone. I think the best thing one can say about this morning, at least her, is that it's not actually raining! I'm clinging to the hope that by Thursday Trump will have accepted defeat and there will be at least some good news. And, on a personal note, that our niece will be really be on the mend from her attack of Covid-19.
Down here in the front line - against the wind, at least - we have yet another day of 40-50mph winds. Although the rest of the week may at last bring a respite to the relentless breeze.
I can cope with wind, just about, although I shall not be sorry when the tree surgeon comes to work on the apparently elderly silver birch in the garden.
I am also waiting on the local "tree surgeon" (aka Devon lads with chainsaws), to take down much of the ash die-back infected branches hanging above the domestic oil tank...
Probably a great cheaper by the hour! Ours is in a conservation area, and close to houses etc, so need the professionals. Best of luck with getting done. Take it they're clearing away the rubbish?
Good morning everyone. I think the best thing one can say about this morning, at least her, is that it's not actually raining! I'm clinging to the hope that by Thursday Trump will have accepted defeat and there will be at least some good news. And, on a personal note, that our niece will be really be on the mend from her attack of Covid-19.
Down here in the front line - against the wind, at least - we have yet another day of 40-50mph winds. Although the rest of the week may at last bring a respite to the relentless breeze.
I can cope with wind, just about, although I shall not be sorry when the tree surgeon comes to work on the apparently elderly silver birch in the garden.
I am also waiting on the local "tree surgeon" (aka Devon lads with chainsaws), to take down much of the ash die-back infected branches hanging above the domestic oil tank...
Probably a great cheaper by the hour! Ours is in a conservation area, and close to houses etc, so need the professionals. Best of luck with getting done. Take it they're clearing away the rubbish?
They will just drag it to my mega-bonfire site. (Although I doubt it will be dry enough to light this side of May. By then, I can use it as the local "Covid is over, you can come on out now" beacon!)
Graham Brady will ask Johnson today to publish Whitehall assessments of the economic and non-covid health impacts of lockdown.
There's a PhD thesis for a language student over the use of the "L-word" this year.
This week, it's been routinely used to describe a situation where most people are still going to work and schools remain open, simply because it's more restrictive than current regulations.
To repeat, a lockdown is when you cannot leave your house to exercise or work unless you are a government-defined key worker, and going to the grocery or pharmacy (only) requires permission from the police in advance. This was seen in large parts of the world earlier this year, and definitely isn't what's proposed anywhere in the UK.
It's a fair point from Graham Brady by the way, the government should provide the evidence on which they base such decisions to be debated in Parliament.
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?
Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange. I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet. It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
I think that the very large majority are being sensible about social distancing, hand-washing, wearing masks etc. Leaving aside COVID, a very beneficial effect of these measures is that it reduces transmission of ordinary flus, colds etc.
I think there is an element of lockdowns being for other people. If you aren't trying to run a business, or don't have children in their twenties and thirties, (and it's those groups who are bearing the brunt of sacrifice) it's not much more than a nuisance.
But, 72% is a big number, and much higher than I would have expected (albeit, well down on near universal support back in March). I guess, if it is seen as working, then Farage will have no opening. If we get to the stage of a third lockdown being imposed, then Farage will have hit the jackpot.
UQ School of Psychology researchers examined the extent to which a leader's narcissism was associated with their endorsement of, and motivation to learn about, leadership theories.
Dr. Nik Steffens said the findings build on previous research showing leadership was an activity that appeals to, and boosts, people's inflated sense of self.
"The more narcissistic individuals are, the more they endorse various theories of leadership and the more they want to learn about them," Dr. Steffens said.
"This in turn suggests that what motivates some people to engage with leadership theory is more a personal concern for the self than a social concern for the greater good. Our findings chime with an emerging body of work which suggests that narcissists desire to be the center of attention and that one way in which they are able to feed this ambition is by striving for positions of responsibility and power over others. It would appear that those who have self-serving tendencies not only have an elevated motivation to lead and exert their influence but are also those who are most keen to learn about contemporary theories of leadership."...
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
To be fair to OGH, I think the problem lies more with Twitter, who simply can't afford the infrastructure to keep their own site running properly. I'm expecting it to fall over completely at some point in the next couple of days.
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
The Twitter problem is odd because it appears to affect only some users with only some phone and browser combinations. Nor, so far as I can see from a two minute search, are there many similar complaints from other Vanilla users, or Twitter users. If I were running (and, crucially, paying for) the site, I'd wonder about bringing in a consultant for a week or so. Btw, the adverts at the top seem to have disappeared. Some are pointing the finger at the Covid incidence tables, which aiui do not come from Twitter. Is it a question of some software stacks needing to download the lot before calculating how much screen space is needed, in which case is there a configuration option to set image size in advance?
I do not underestimate Farage’s rebranded vehicle.
As others point out, 15% (or even half of that) is enough to secure Farage a permanent booth on Question Time —- and provide succour to the various nutjobs infesting then Telegraph, Mail, and the Tory Party.
Brexit/Reform and the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party between them poll up to 10% in Welsh polling and could conceivably hold the balance of power.
Good morning everyone. I think the best thing one can say about this morning, at least her, is that it's not actually raining! I'm clinging to the hope that by Thursday Trump will have accepted defeat and there will be at least some good news. And, on a personal note, that our niece will be really be on the mend from her attack of Covid-19.
Down here in the front line - against the wind, at least - we have yet another day of 40-50mph winds. Although the rest of the week may at last bring a respite to the relentless breeze.
I can cope with wind, just about, although I shall not be sorry when the tree surgeon comes to work on the apparently elderly silver birch in the garden.
I am also waiting on the local "tree surgeon" (aka Devon lads with chainsaws), to take down much of the ash die-back infected branches hanging above the domestic oil tank...
Probably a great cheaper by the hour! Ours is in a conservation area, and close to houses etc, so need the professionals. Best of luck with getting done. Take it they're clearing away the rubbish?
They will just drag it to my mega-bonfire site. (Although I doubt it will be dry enough to light this side of May. By then, I can use it as the local "Covid is over, you can come on out now" beacon!)
Probably no point me climbing on my roof with binoculars to try to see it. Even if I could, and/or my wife would let me! Unlikely, I suppose, to be ready for Guy Fawkes Night?
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
To be fair to OGH, I think the problem lies more with Twitter, who simply can't afford the infrastructure to keep their own site running properly. I'm expecting it to fall over completely at some point in the next couple of days.
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
Yes, I agree with you, and I hope that I did not appear critical of Mike, because that was not my intention.
I don't know whether is possible for admins to disable or restrict Twitter within Vanilla, but suspect it may not be.
The overall approach is a inefficient. 50 000 PB readers load the thread and refresh it every few minutes. Each time the page is downloaded, the Vanilla server hits Twitter with a request for all the tweets in the comments. This means that the traffic between the two is huge when it would be possible for the tweets to be grabbed once and stored on the Vanilla site.
And PB is not the only site that is embedding Tweets.
I'm guessing Twitter insist on this because they want to keep control and be able to remove all traces of offensive tweets, but their policy must surely mean a massive unnecesary traffic load on their site
Graham Brady will ask Johnson today to publish Whitehall assessments of the economic and non-covid health impacts of lockdown.
There's a PhD thesis for a language student over the use of the "L-word" this year.
This week, it's been routinely used to describe a situation where most people are still going to work and schools remain open, simply because it's more restrictive than current regulations.
To repeat, a lockdown is when you cannot leave your house to exercise or work unless you are a government-defined key worker, and going to the grocery or pharmacy (only) requires permission from the police in advance. This was seen in large parts of the world earlier this year, and definitely isn't what's proposed anywhere in the UK.
It's a fair point from Graham Brady by the way, the government should provide the evidence on which they base such decisions to be debated in Parliament.
This is like the A-word for the past decade.
Where increasing government spending year on year, but at a slower rate of increase, was decried as harsh austerity while other nations in Europe where having austerity in which spending was actually being cut rather than increased.
Here's a tweet that won't slow things down - you just sweep over the text and paste it straight into the PB comment box:
JWTheSpa @SpaJw · 30m In fighting a Labour civil war, what outcome is the far-left seeking? They do not have the numbers to launch a challenge to Starmer. So, presumably, it’s all about control of the NEC and using that to get rid of David Evans. But if they try and fail, they’re fucked.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
No, why do you think the scientists are lying? What is in it for them?
They are a bunch of clowns, they have been wrong since the beginning , have you seen any of their previous forecasts that were anywhere near reality. They may have fancy titles but they are clowns.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
I think that the very large majority are being sensible about social distancing, hand-washing, wearing masks etc. Leaving aside COVID, a very beneficial effect of these measures is that it reduces transmission of ordinary flus, colds etc.
I think there is an element of lockdowns being for other people. If you aren't trying to run a business, or don't have children in their twenties and thirties, (and it's those groups who are bearing the brunt of sacrifice) it's not much more than a nuisance.
But, 72% is a big number, and much higher than I would have expected (albeit, well down on near universal support back in March). I guess, if it is seen as working, then Farage will have no opening. If we get to the stage of a third lockdown being imposed, then Farage will have hit the jackpot.
I’m in the “lockdowns polling is bunk” camp. It is misleading at best, because it measures support for something that people are being paid to do. Remove the support and see how popular it is then.
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
To be fair to OGH, I think the problem lies more with Twitter, who simply can't afford the infrastructure to keep their own site running properly. I'm expecting it to fall over completely at some point in the next couple of days.
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
Yes, I agree with you, and I hope that I did not appear critical of Mike, because that was not my intention.
I don't know whether is possible for admins to disable or restrict Twitter within Vanilla, but suspect it may not be.
The overall approach is a inefficient. 50 000 PB readers load the thread and refresh it every few minutes. Each time the page is downloaded, the Vanilla server hits Twitter with a request for all the tweets in the comments. This means that the traffic between the two is huge when it would be possible for the tweets to be grabbed once and stored on the Vanilla site.
And PB is not the only site that is embedding Tweets.
I'm guessing Twitter insist on this because they want to keep control and be able to remove all traces of offensive tweets, but their policy must surely mean a massive unnecesary traffic load on their site
So why isn't it slow on my PC, just the iPad and phone?
Please don't disable the twitter embeds if that's what you're talking about.
For some of us with other stuff to do it is hugely helpful to scroll through PB and know that within moments you are totally up to date on just about everything.
Graham Brady will ask Johnson today to publish Whitehall assessments of the economic and non-covid health impacts of lockdown.
There's a PhD thesis for a language student over the use of the "L-word" this year.
This week, it's been routinely used to describe a situation where most people are still going to work and schools remain open, simply because it's more restrictive than current regulations.
To repeat, a lockdown is when you cannot leave your house to exercise or work unless you are a government-defined key worker, and going to the grocery or pharmacy (only) requires permission from the police in advance. This was seen in large parts of the world earlier this year, and definitely isn't what's proposed anywhere in the UK.
It's a fair point from Graham Brady by the way, the government should provide the evidence on which they base such decisions to be debated in Parliament.
This is like the A-word for the past decade.
Where increasing government spending year on year, but at a slower rate of increase, was decried as harsh austerity while other nations in Europe where having austerity in which spending was actually being cut rather than increased.
Please don't disable the twitter embeds if that's what you're talking about.
For some of us with other stuff to do it is hugely helpful to scroll through PB and know that within moments you are totally up to date on just about everything.
That's what Twitter is for!
We shouldn't have a site almost impossible to use for many readers just so you don't have to switch tabs?
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
I think that the very large majority are being sensible about social distancing, hand-washing, wearing masks etc. Leaving aside COVID, a very beneficial effect of these measures is that it reduces transmission of ordinary flus, colds etc.
I think there is an element of lockdowns being for other people. If you aren't trying to run a business, or don't have children in their twenties and thirties, (and it's those groups who are bearing the brunt of sacrifice) it's not much more than a nuisance.
But, 72% is a big number, and much higher than I would have expected (albeit, well down on near universal support back in March). I guess, if it is seen as working, then Farage will have no opening. If we get to the stage of a third lockdown being imposed, then Farage will have hit the jackpot.
In public yes people will give the impression they support thevregulatoons whilst working out how they can bypass them at home, the very place where most transmissions take place.
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
To be fair to OGH, I think the problem lies more with Twitter, who simply can't afford the infrastructure to keep their own site running properly. I'm expecting it to fall over completely at some point in the next couple of days.
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
Yes, I agree with you, and I hope that I did not appear critical of Mike, because that was not my intention.
I don't know whether is possible for admins to disable or restrict Twitter within Vanilla, but suspect it may not be.
The overall approach is a inefficient. 50 000 PB readers load the thread and refresh it every few minutes. Each time the page is downloaded, the Vanilla server hits Twitter with a request for all the tweets in the comments. This means that the traffic between the two is huge when it would be possible for the tweets to be grabbed once and stored on the Vanilla site.
And PB is not the only site that is embedding Tweets.
I'm guessing Twitter insist on this because they want to keep control and be able to remove all traces of offensive tweets, but their policy must surely mean a massive unnecesary traffic load on their site
So why isn't it slow on my PC, just the iPad and phone?
Similarly it was very slow on my phone for a few days, but now it's back to normal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/ ...A few months ago, I signed a group letter deploring the growing censoriousness in our culture: “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” A part of the left—admittedly the part most addicted to social media—reacted to this letter with what can only be described as censoriousness, intolerance, and a determination to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.
But anyone who is truly worried by these tendencies should fear the consequences of a second Trump administration even more. Anyone who actually cares about academic freedom, or the future of objective reporting, or the ideas behind the statues built to honor American democrats in the country’s public squares, must hope that Trump loses. If he wins a second term, extremism on the left will not be stopped. It will not grow quieter. Instead, extremism will spread, mutate into new forms, and gradually become entrenched in more areas of American life.
Radicalism of all kinds will spread, on the right as well as the left, because America will find itself deeply enmeshed in the same kind of death spiral that the country experienced in the 1850s, a form of negative politics that the British political scientist Roger Eatwell has called “cumulative extremism.”...
I do not underestimate Farage’s rebranded vehicle.
Leaving the EU was a niche fetish on a par with formicophilia until the Druid of South Thanet worked his nativist magick on it. Farage will do the same with lockdown scepticism, banging on about refugees in the channel and whatever nonsensical UK version of QAnon he can dream up.
Please don't disable the twitter embeds if that's what you're talking about.
For some of us with other stuff to do it is hugely helpful to scroll through PB and know that within moments you are totally up to date on just about everything.
That's what Twitter is for!
We shouldn't have a site almost impossible to use for many readers just so you don't have to switch tabs?
I don't use Twitter, any time I go there its an echo chamber showing more Tweets like the one you're looking at. Look at a pro-Trump Tweet see many more MAGA BS. Look at an anti-Johnson Tweet see many more FBPE BS. Probably not using the site "properly" but can't be bothered with it frankly.
I come to this site - as Topping I suspect and many others do - knowing a spectrum of posts (including Tweets) will be curated and posted here by the users here. That if there's something worthwhile to know someone here will post it. Better than the echo chamber algorithms of social media.
This site works well. Except it recent days not loading sometimes - in which case fixing the issue of why it isn't loading on mobiles is the priority not removing a function that has been there working fine for years.
Please don't disable the twitter embeds if that's what you're talking about.
For some of us with other stuff to do it is hugely helpful to scroll through PB and know that within moments you are totally up to date on just about everything.
That's what Twitter is for!
We shouldn't have a site almost impossible to use for many readers just so you don't have to switch tabs?
I find PB is an excellent filter for twitter with people posting the useful political stuff. So I wouldn't want that to stop.
But I understand there's a problem at the moment. I will try and remember to refrain from adding any tweets as postings at the moment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/ ...A few months ago, I signed a group letter deploring the growing censoriousness in our culture: “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” A part of the left—admittedly the part most addicted to social media—reacted to this letter with what can only be described as censoriousness, intolerance, and a determination to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.
But anyone who is truly worried by these tendencies should fear the consequences of a second Trump administration even more. Anyone who actually cares about academic freedom, or the future of objective reporting, or the ideas behind the statues built to honor American democrats in the country’s public squares, must hope that Trump loses. If he wins a second term, extremism on the left will not be stopped. It will not grow quieter. Instead, extremism will spread, mutate into new forms, and gradually become entrenched in more areas of American life.
Radicalism of all kinds will spread, on the right as well as the left, because America will find itself deeply enmeshed in the same kind of death spiral that the country experienced in the 1850s, a form of negative politics that the British political scientist Roger Eatwell has called “cumulative extremism.”...
That sounds awfully like he's saying "Vote for the left-wing candidate, or the intolerant left will riot"
I do not underestimate Farage’s rebranded vehicle.
As others point out, 15% (or even half of that) is enough to secure Farage a permanent booth on Question Time —- and provide succour to the various nutjobs infesting then Telegraph, Mail, and the Tory Party.
Brexit/Reform and the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party between them poll up to 10% in Welsh polling and could conceivably hold the balance of power.
Just being Farage seems to guarantee a permanent presence on QT. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the props department have a special chair with his name on it.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.
Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
Wrong.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
Especially when you consider that deaths from cancer, heart disease, and all other infectious diseases are very much in the same ballpark of average age of death as well. It's really dismissive of anyone who's died from covid, cancer, heart disease, or any other infectious disease.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure they don't realise that, or mean it that way. They just think they have a scorching point and don't grasp how wrong they are.
This sort of statistical illiteracy and swallowing of codswallop is really common amongst the covid denialists. I'm just completely in the dark over why they do it. They seem absolutely desperate to believe it's just not a thing, no, not a thing, why are people acting like it's a thing, don't they realise it's not a thing at all...
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.
Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
Wrong.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
It's an argument very few people would make publicly, but one does hear it an awful lot privately.
I think we need to look at the "somewhat" support lockdown rather than "strongly" support lockdown.
That suggests a lot of people are reluctantly supporting it for now because they fear there's no alternative, for now, but they're not happy about it and want for someone to give them permission to publicly change their minds.
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?
Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange. I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet. It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?
Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:
"Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6 On this market:£1,632 On this selection:£1,175 Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."
This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
I think that the very large majority are being sensible about social distancing, hand-washing, wearing masks etc. Leaving aside COVID, a very beneficial effect of these measures is that it reduces transmission of ordinary flus, colds etc.
I think there is an element of lockdowns being for other people. If you aren't trying to run a business, or don't have children in their twenties and thirties, (and it's those groups who are bearing the brunt of sacrifice) it's not much more than a nuisance.
But, 72% is a big number, and much higher than I would have expected (albeit, well down on near universal support back in March). I guess, if it is seen as working, then Farage will have no opening. If we get to the stage of a third lockdown being imposed, then Farage will have hit the jackpot.
In public yes people will give the impression they support thevregulatoons whilst working out how they can bypass them at home, the very place where most transmissions take place.
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
No, the lockdown polling is a load of crap. Lockdown is for other people. Everyone wants other people to lockdown and believes other people should do it, the 72% support is for everyone else do do it.
What motivation do you think they have to tell lies? What is in it for them?
They aren't lying, lockdown is for everyone else they support it for other people. My sister is a great example of it "yeah it's probably a good thing" next sentence "you're still coming for dinner next Sunday, right?"
I think that the very large majority are being sensible about social distancing, hand-washing, wearing masks etc. Leaving aside COVID, a very beneficial effect of these measures is that it reduces transmission of ordinary flus, colds etc.
I think there is an element of lockdowns being for other people. If you aren't trying to run a business, or don't have children in their twenties and thirties, (and it's those groups who are bearing the brunt of sacrifice) it's not much more than a nuisance.
But, 72% is a big number, and much higher than I would have expected (albeit, well down on near universal support back in March). I guess, if it is seen as working, then Farage will have no opening. If we get to the stage of a third lockdown being imposed, then Farage will have hit the jackpot.
I’m in the “lockdowns polling is bunk” camp. It is misleading at best, because it measures support for something that people are being paid to do. Remove the support and see how popular it is then.
It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.
Or, perhaps more accurately, "when did you stop killing your granny?" question.
Good morning everyone. I think the best thing one can say about this morning, at least her, is that it's not actually raining! I'm clinging to the hope that by Thursday Trump will have accepted defeat and there will be at least some good news. And, on a personal note, that our niece will be really be on the mend from her attack of Covid-19.
Down here in the front line - against the wind, at least - we have yet another day of 40-50mph winds. Although the rest of the week may at last bring a respite to the relentless breeze.
I can cope with wind, just about, although I shall not be sorry when the tree surgeon comes to work on the apparently elderly silver birch in the garden.
I am also waiting on the local "tree surgeon" (aka Devon lads with chainsaws), to take down much of the ash die-back infected branches hanging above the domestic oil tank...
Probably a great cheaper by the hour! Ours is in a conservation area, and close to houses etc, so need the professionals. Best of luck with getting done. Take it they're clearing away the rubbish?
They will just drag it to my mega-bonfire site. (Although I doubt it will be dry enough to light this side of May. By then, I can use it as the local "Covid is over, you can come on out now" beacon!)
Probably no point me climbing on my roof with binoculars to try to see it. Even if I could, and/or my wife would let me! Unlikely, I suppose, to be ready for Guy Fawkes Night?
I think to be ready for Guy Fawkes night, it would require sufficient petrol to get it going that you wouldn't need the binoculars!
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?
Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange. I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet. It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?
Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:
"Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6 On this market:£1,632 On this selection:£1,175 Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."
This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
To be fair to OGH, I think the problem lies more with Twitter, who simply can't afford the infrastructure to keep their own site running properly. I'm expecting it to fall over completely at some point in the next couple of days.
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
The Twitter problem is odd because it appears to affect only some users with only some phone and browser combinations.
I have gigabit fibre to within a metre of this hardwired Windows PC and t'internet absolutely flies.
However, PB.Com will be slow to load whichever browser I use, unless I block platform.twitter.com
Until recently, applying the same solution to my phone did not work, and I took to disabling Javascript as a workaround.
This morning I find that Android Firefox coupled with uBlock Origin blocking platform.twitter.com works well on my phone, which it didn't do until recently.
OGH's suggestion of using Android DuckDuckGo will work well for those who want speedier reloads, but it will not show any Twitter links at all.
Don't you wish he'd just go away and we'd never have to see that horrible man again (credit though to the picture editor. At least you've found a rare shot where he doesn't look pleased with himself)
Please don't disable the twitter embeds if that's what you're talking about.
For some of us with other stuff to do it is hugely helpful to scroll through PB and know that within moments you are totally up to date on just about everything.
That's what Twitter is for!
We shouldn't have a site almost impossible to use for many readers just so you don't have to switch tabs?
Has there been any polling on how this should be paid for?
Everyone probably assumes it's going to be more 'funny money' printing that doesn't affect them - except that the pernicious imbalances and inequities in society that have already been created by over a decade of QE inflating asset prices will grind inexorably onwards, shafting the next generation.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/ ...A few months ago, I signed a group letter deploring the growing censoriousness in our culture: “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” A part of the left—admittedly the part most addicted to social media—reacted to this letter with what can only be described as censoriousness, intolerance, and a determination to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.
But anyone who is truly worried by these tendencies should fear the consequences of a second Trump administration even more. Anyone who actually cares about academic freedom, or the future of objective reporting, or the ideas behind the statues built to honor American democrats in the country’s public squares, must hope that Trump loses. If he wins a second term, extremism on the left will not be stopped. It will not grow quieter. Instead, extremism will spread, mutate into new forms, and gradually become entrenched in more areas of American life.
Radicalism of all kinds will spread, on the right as well as the left, because America will find itself deeply enmeshed in the same kind of death spiral that the country experienced in the 1850s, a form of negative politics that the British political scientist Roger Eatwell has called “cumulative extremism.”...
That sounds awfully like he's saying "Vote for the left-wing candidate, or the intolerant left will riot"
Well, it's she. And it's quite a stretch to describe Biden as 'left wing".
Apart for that, agreed - though what she's talking about is a mutual ratcheting up of extremism.
It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.
They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).
They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.
I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?
Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange. I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet. It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?
Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:
"Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6 On this market:£1,632 On this selection:£1,175 Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."
This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/ ...A few months ago, I signed a group letter deploring the growing censoriousness in our culture: “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” A part of the left—admittedly the part most addicted to social media—reacted to this letter with what can only be described as censoriousness, intolerance, and a determination to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.
But anyone who is truly worried by these tendencies should fear the consequences of a second Trump administration even more. Anyone who actually cares about academic freedom, or the future of objective reporting, or the ideas behind the statues built to honor American democrats in the country’s public squares, must hope that Trump loses. If he wins a second term, extremism on the left will not be stopped. It will not grow quieter. Instead, extremism will spread, mutate into new forms, and gradually become entrenched in more areas of American life.
Radicalism of all kinds will spread, on the right as well as the left, because America will find itself deeply enmeshed in the same kind of death spiral that the country experienced in the 1850s, a form of negative politics that the British political scientist Roger Eatwell has called “cumulative extremism.”...
That sounds awfully like he's saying "Vote for the left-wing candidate, or the intolerant left will riot"
Well, it's she. And it's quite a stretch to describe Biden as 'left wing".
Apart for that, agreed - though what she's talking about is a mutual ratcheting up of extremism.
Historically no, but by American standards, his policy platform for this election is left wing. Many policies are nicked straight from Bernie Sanders campaign.
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?
Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange. I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet. It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?
Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:
"Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6 On this market:£1,632 On this selection:£1,175 Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."
This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.
So what's in your inbox??
What are you talking about? Please explain.
Read downthread. A claim that you have been sent evidence.
It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.
They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).
They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.
I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed Not a mass movement of idealists.
@isam - you're clearly a very bright guy. But the UK went through a terrible period of excess deaths earlier this year. Now, it wasn't iuniversal, but some parts of the country were seeing more than twice the normal number of deaths for a couple of months.
That doesn't mean that "more lockdown" is the answer, but the chart you posted is incredibly misleading, and you must know that.
So , when deaths are way below normal, like the previous 12 months, we dont celebrate or even mention it, and when the next year they are so much higher that the two more or less equal the average, we panic about the latter rather than think it might be regressing to the mean?
I don't see why that is so misleading really. If I normall win 5k a month, then win 7.5k in a particular month, winning 2.5 the following month isn't anything to worry about
I'm sure this has been said on here before - but there has been a very noticable upswing in ambulance sirens in East London over the last few weeks.
I heard from someone in ICU last night. She said they are at capacity and this time it's full of people in their 40's fighting for their lives.
I'm only passing on what she said.
My niece works in the ambulance service and says it has never need as busy as it is at the moment. People are having to wait hours and hours for assistance.
My Dad works with someone whose daughter runs the Covid ward at our local hospital, and she says its not busy. I went for a test in Rainham on Friday and was the only person there
It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.
They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).
They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.
I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.
The young absolutely feel they are dispossessed and are following charismatic leaders who are offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems.
That's populism.
The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.
UQ School of Psychology researchers examined the extent to which a leader's narcissism was associated with their endorsement of, and motivation to learn about, leadership theories.
Dr. Nik Steffens said the findings build on previous research showing leadership was an activity that appeals to, and boosts, people's inflated sense of self.
"The more narcissistic individuals are, the more they endorse various theories of leadership and the more they want to learn about them," Dr. Steffens said.
"This in turn suggests that what motivates some people to engage with leadership theory is more a personal concern for the self than a social concern for the greater good. Our findings chime with an emerging body of work which suggests that narcissists desire to be the center of attention and that one way in which they are able to feed this ambition is by striving for positions of responsibility and power over others. It would appear that those who have self-serving tendencies not only have an elevated motivation to lead and exert their influence but are also those who are most keen to learn about contemporary theories of leadership."...
Bozo is clearly an exception. He is massively narcissistic but clearly knows nothing about leadership theory or practice. He, like his father, is a believer in the gifted amateur, and learning about such things might suggest he is not a natural born leader, which of course, he deludes himself he is.However I suspect he is gradually realising true leadership cannot be faked.
I'm expecting (indeed praying for) a Biden win. Always thought that, unlike Hillary, he is someone comfortable with ordinary working Americans. You can imagine him having a beer with "regular" guys, which you certainly couldn't imagine La Clinton doing.
So - what on earth is he doing sharing a platform with Lady Gaga? The well-known anti-fracker. I can't imagine anyone more likely to push blue-collar workers, who are maybe thinking about sitting this election out, saying to themselves, "aw, f*ck it, I'm voting Trump, after all."
Madness.
(And not compensated for by Trump's latest bonkers remarks about sacking Fauci. That's factored in already.)
We seem to be in the middle of a bizarre political moment.
How often is it that a Govt announces a major policy affecting the whole nation which has overwhelming and almost equal support from both Con and Lab voters?
Yet we have a very small, vociferous minority trying to create the impression there is substantial opposition to what's being done.
Well there isn't. Sure the Govt can be accused of incompetence on a massive scale. But whether they are incompetent or not, the public right across the board massively supports the lockdown.
The vociferous minority are doing mental gymnastics desperate to manipulate or distort data in a forlorn attempt to persuade people to support their view that the lockdown should be opposed due to a bizarre sense that it goes against their definition of "freedom".
The great British public, right across the political spectrum, has enough basic common sense to assess the situation.
And, as was alluded to on here earlier today, I wouldn't mind betting that if the vast majority of those opposing the lockdown were actually the PM taking the decision they would then go for a lockdown.
What I find particularly odd is the idea the scientists are trying to justify a lockdown by making up the numbers.
Why would they want to do that? Sounds a bit tinfoil hat for me
Well we know that the Cambridge 4,000 deaths per day model is out of date and the current projection is for a peak of 1,000 deaths per day as produced on the 28th of October. You fell for it Horse, the scientists scared you into submission with their scary graphs of lies.
Actually, I find 1,000 deaths per day pretty scary.
Every day must be pretty scary then, the average is about 1600
Very glib, and completely missing the point. Presumably without Covid that 1,600 would go down to 600 then? Or is it that Covid victims are pretty well nearly dead anyway?
The average age of a covid death is higher than the average life expectancy so maybe you’re right on your second point
Wrong.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
Especially when you consider that deaths from cancer, heart disease, and all other infectious diseases are very much in the same ballpark of average age of death as well. It's really dismissive of anyone who's died from covid, cancer, heart disease, or any other infectious disease.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure they don't realise that, or mean it that way. They just think they have a scorching point and don't grasp how wrong they are.
This sort of statistical illiteracy and swallowing of codswallop is really common amongst the covid denialists. I'm just completely in the dark over why they do it. They seem absolutely desperate to believe it's just not a thing, no, not a thing, why are people acting like it's a thing, don't they realise it's not a thing at all...
Why?
Fear of being wrong. Emotional sunk cost. Tribal loyalty. Fear of captivity (lockdown). Fear of economic costs. Desire to appear knowledgeable and participate with the people who actually are knowledgeable. Attention.
I'm generally onside with doing what needs to be done - and in any case, I can see why it's a political imperative not to be rationing ventilators on the doorstep of A&E.
However, the polling reveals only a need for a short-term comfort blanket, and IMO will quickly change once the economic impact becomes apparent. As with Brexit, the nation's gratitude for saving it from death/foreigners nicking our fish will be short-lived when unemployment's sky high and the money's not there for endless furlough.
I was going to say "no wonder Nige has ridden into town", but interesting to see how it plays out with him railing AGAINST the short-term comfort blanket this time.
I wonder how many hours' (or minutes') notice we, and MPs, are going to get of the text of the new regulations, before they are voted on in parliament in two days time.
The polls would be more interesting if they looked for trends in age or class or profession.
Do young people support these measures as strongly as old? My guess is this is way more popular among the old than the the young. Is there a trend with income ? Again, my guess is this is way more popular with the managerial classes.
Also -- if you could get people to tell the truth -- it would be interesting to poll people as to whether they will really obey all the lockdown measures, or whether they would be willing to commit minor infractions ? My impression is that compliance is becoming laxer.
UQ School of Psychology researchers examined the extent to which a leader's narcissism was associated with their endorsement of, and motivation to learn about, leadership theories.
Dr. Nik Steffens said the findings build on previous research showing leadership was an activity that appeals to, and boosts, people's inflated sense of self.
"The more narcissistic individuals are, the more they endorse various theories of leadership and the more they want to learn about them," Dr. Steffens said.
"This in turn suggests that what motivates some people to engage with leadership theory is more a personal concern for the self than a social concern for the greater good. Our findings chime with an emerging body of work which suggests that narcissists desire to be the center of attention and that one way in which they are able to feed this ambition is by striving for positions of responsibility and power over others. It would appear that those who have self-serving tendencies not only have an elevated motivation to lead and exert their influence but are also those who are most keen to learn about contemporary theories of leadership."...
Bozo is clearly an exception. He is massively narcissistic but clearly knows nothing about leadership theory or practice. He, like his father, is a believer in the gifted amateur, and learning about such things might suggest he is not a natural born leader, which of course, he deludes himself he is.However I suspect he is gradually realising true leadership cannot be faked.
I suspect that one of the worst things that happened to Boris J was getting a job as a journalist on a paper/magazine that was regarded as something informed people read. As a result he was quoted by such people and it all went on from there. To be fair, he can turn a good phrase! Whether or not it accurately reflects the situation, or is anywhere near it is a different matter!
Please don't disable the twitter embeds if that's what you're talking about.
For some of us with other stuff to do it is hugely helpful to scroll through PB and know that within moments you are totally up to date on just about everything.
Has there been any polling on how this should be paid for?
Everyone probably assumes it's going to be more 'funny money' printing that doesn't affect them - except that the pernicious imbalances and inequities in society that have already been created by over a decade of QE inflating asset prices will grind inexorably onwards, shafting the next generation.
That's why the new money from QE should be directed at supporting consumers (UBI or helicopter money) rather than trickle down through banks offering very low interest loans to wealthy individuals who invest it in equities and other assets.
By the way, I should have made clear when tipping Jon Ossoff to win his battle with David Perdue in Georgia that he needs to cross the 50% barrier. Otherwise there's a run off January 5th. The same applies to the other Senate Special election in Georgia.
In both cases there are third party candidates making the 50% threshold harder to achieve in the first round.
I think Ossoff will win but whether he crosses 50% tomorrow is more in the balance.
You also incorrectly quoted his odds on Betfair as being 2/1, when in fact they were actually just above evens.
That's, sadly, a lie. They came down to Evens within two hours of my hot tip. I got on him at 2/1 twice. Don't believe me, I'll send you the betting slip.
Sorry you weren't quick enough out of the trap on this occasion.
Please don't call highly respected posters liars, and it's true. You palpably confused decimal 2.0 with 2/1.
Not that that makes you a bad person. I'd like to say I have never done the same myself, but my lying circuits are out of commission.
I'm sorry but that's palpably untrue. He was 2/1 with Betfair. End of. Send me your email and I'll send you my two betting slips, the second made just exactly when I posted the tip. Ossoff shortened very quickly. I doubt it had anything to do with people on here taking up the tip (though it may have). Almost certainly as a response to his evisceration of Perdue in the 2nd debate.
So sod off yourself for calling me a liar.
p.s. unless I'm on spreads I always bet in fractions not decimals so I know exactly what I'm talking about, ta very much. 2/1 is what I got and 2/1 is what it was.
On the Exchange or the Sportsbook?
Alistair - please let's not confuse matters, Betfair Sportsbook doesn't even offer this market, we are talking here about the Betfair Exchange. I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet. It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
According to the post below, you have the proof - or otherwise - in your inbox already?
Here's what I posted at 8.00am this morning:
"Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6 On this market:£1,632 On this selection:£1,175 Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."
This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.
So what's in your inbox??
What are you talking about? Please explain.
Read downthread. A claim that you have been sent evidence.
I've now checked an email received in my inbox which shows that Mysticrose has a bet at 2/1 as he claimed on Ossoff winning in Georgia. This is at odds with the betting information for this market I obtained from the Betfair Exchange and on which I relied. I accept that Mysticrose did indeed obtain odds of 2/1 from Betfair and I therefore apologise unreservedly for suggesting otherwise.
Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday
I agree but the problem is BigG, 58% of Tory Party members also support Trump (according to ConHome) whereas only 13% of UK voters would vote for Trump.
Says an awful lot about the current state of the Conservative Party. I think Farage would very likely win the Conservative leadership right now if there was a ballot and he was allowed to stand.
In Nevada, 1.4% of mail ballots so far required a signature cure, when the voter didn't sign the ballot or the sig didn't match the one on file.
Dems have cured 51% of their rejected ballots so far, vs. 35% for Republicans.
That strikes me as more than semi-interesting. It suggests that the Dems have got a much slicker GOTV operation and are actively contacting voters whose ballots were rejected and helping them sort it out.
Farage is Trumpesque and will go the way of his hero will on Tuesday
I agree but the problem is BigG, 58% of Tory Party members also support Trump (according to ConHome) whereas only 13% of UK voters would vote for Trump.
Says an awful lot about the current state of the Conservative Party. I think Farage would very likely win the Conservative leadership right now if there was a ballot and he was allowed to stand.
If Trump wins then any existing rules will be finished. Over. Gone.
It's quite fascinating to watch an empire die in real time. We're probably lucky to be witnesses to it.
Ironically, Robert Heinlein wrote a story in the early 50's about the US electing someone in 2016 who set up the USA's first dictatorship and this provided the background to his novel "Revolt in 2100".
It's a myth that young people don't go for populism.
They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).
They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.
I don't agree with your definition of populism. 'Populism' implies a following of the common folk or the dispossessed. Not a mass movement of idealists.
The young absolutely feel they are dispossessed and are following charismatic leaders who are offering simplistic and idealistic solutions to complex problems.
That's populism.
The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.
If they had half likes I'd have given one to you. You cannot compare the lowest common denominators that follow Farage with Scottish Nationalists or anti apartheid freedom fighters who follow a cause.
Comments
2021 could be a lot of fun. Yes I expect it to be another Mercedes walkover, but underneath there are plenty of things to change:
1. Verstappen / Hulkenberg in upgrades Red Bulls will be quite a thing. Will Red Bull buy out Honda's engine design / team to go manufacturer for 2022?
2. Ferrari with an engine that has power with Leclerc / Sainz will keep Red Bull honest
3. McLaren have made huge strides. Expect more with Danny Ric alongside Norris
We need to find a seat for Perez. If Hamilton does retire then I'm sure he will be linked to it, but I can't see it. Nor can I see George Russell making that kind of step up if Mercedes pay out the cash to get him released by Williams.
At 2/1
QED. Have a nice day. Hahahahahaha.
Actuarial life expectancy at age 75 is very different to life expectancy at birth.
It really is both incorrect and misleading to use average life expectancy at birth to suggest that older covid deaths were nearly dead anyway. Not just wrong, but callous too.
Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats
MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6
On this market:£1,632
On this selection:£1,175
Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies.
It's come to something when OGH is having to find workarounds to make his own site work
I think Toto and Lewis are both having serious thoughts about their future, having achieved so much. My guess is that Toto moves to a wider role within Daimler group and LH stays on one more year to attempt an eighth title. If for some reason LH does walk away, Mercedes will have to buy out someone and it may be that Russell is their only realistic option, as was Bottas four years ago.
Mercedes yesterday showed Red Bull why the latter team needs two competitive drivers, they were able to double-team Max on the strategy to the detriment of the Dutchman.
Hulk goes to Red Bull, and Perez to Haas, is the best guess at the moment. Albon's getting fired after another throwing away of points yesterday, whether he goes completely or Kvyat makes way for him back at AT is another unknown. On yesterday's performance Kvyat deserves the seat.
There's a good chance of a three-way battle for second next year, between Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren.
" I doubt that case numbers will have fallen dramatically by the end of the four-week period"
Telegraph
As Ferrari should have done with Vettel. He hasn't been interested all season, blamed the car a few races in, should have been fired. A wodge of cash to McLaren to get Sainz early would have been worth it for them.
Their latest quarterly results show earnings of only $29m on revenues of nearly $1bn.
https://news.alphastreet.com/twtr-earnings-key-quarterly-highlights-from-twitter-q3-financial-results/
They are also spending a lot of effort and money on moderation this week, and may well choose to deliberately slow the site down rather than allow misinformation and political propaganda to go viral. They know that the eyes of Congress are on them (and other 'social media' sites) at the moment.
Off t'mill now. Let's hope our staff aren't dropping like flies again...
I don't know whether is possible for admins to disable or restrict Twitter within Vanilla, but suspect it may not be.
On the odds, I agree, but I wouldn't take a 1.1 on almost anything, if it took a year to pay out.
I'll believe Hamilton's going when he's gone.
I have produced clear evidence from Betfair itself that Mysticrose lied and is continuing to lie in claiming to have obtained odds of 2/1 on his bet.
It's important to the very integrity of the site that posters do not tell lies, especially when this involves betting issues. Mysticrose should withdraw his claim and apologise.
Best of luck with getting done. Take it they're clearing away the rubbish?
This week, it's been routinely used to describe a situation where most people are still going to work and schools remain open, simply because it's more restrictive than current regulations.
To repeat, a lockdown is when you cannot leave your house to exercise or work unless you are a government-defined key worker, and going to the grocery or pharmacy (only) requires permission from the police in advance. This was seen in large parts of the world earlier this year, and definitely isn't what's proposed anywhere in the UK.
It's a fair point from Graham Brady by the way, the government should provide the evidence on which they base such decisions to be debated in Parliament.
I think there is an element of lockdowns being for other people. If you aren't trying to run a business, or don't have children in their twenties and thirties, (and it's those groups who are bearing the brunt of sacrifice) it's not much more than a nuisance.
But, 72% is a big number, and much higher than I would have expected (albeit, well down on near universal support back in March). I guess, if it is seen as working, then Farage will have no opening. If we get to the stage of a third lockdown being imposed, then Farage will have hit the jackpot.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-narcissists-drawn-leadership-theories.html
The more narcissistic the leader, the higher their interest in leadership theories, according to University of Queensland research.
UQ School of Psychology researchers examined the extent to which a leader's narcissism was associated with their endorsement of, and motivation to learn about, leadership theories.
Dr. Nik Steffens said the findings build on previous research showing leadership was an activity that appeals to, and boosts, people's inflated sense of self.
"The more narcissistic individuals are, the more they endorse various theories of leadership and the more they want to learn about them," Dr. Steffens said.
"This in turn suggests that what motivates some people to engage with leadership theory is more a personal concern for the self than a social concern for the greater good. Our findings chime with an emerging body of work which suggests that narcissists desire to be the center of attention and that one way in which they are able to feed this ambition is by striving for positions of responsibility and power over others. It would appear that those who have self-serving tendencies not only have an elevated motivation to lead and exert their influence but are also those who are most keen to learn about contemporary theories of leadership."...
As others point out, 15% (or even half of that) is enough to secure Farage a permanent booth on Question Time —- and provide succour to the various nutjobs infesting then Telegraph, Mail, and the Tory Party.
Brexit/Reform and the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party between them poll up to 10% in Welsh polling and could conceivably hold the balance of power.
Unlikely, I suppose, to be ready for Guy Fawkes Night?
And PB is not the only site that is embedding Tweets.
I'm guessing Twitter insist on this because they want to keep control and be able to remove all traces of offensive tweets, but their policy must surely mean a massive unnecesary traffic load on their site
Where increasing government spending year on year, but at a slower rate of increase, was decried as harsh austerity while other nations in Europe where having austerity in which spending was actually being cut rather than increased.
JWTheSpa
@SpaJw
·
30m
In fighting a Labour civil war, what outcome is the far-left seeking? They do not have the numbers to launch a challenge to Starmer. So, presumably, it’s all about control of the NEC and using that to get rid of David Evans. But if they try and fail, they’re fucked.
For some of us with other stuff to do it is hugely helpful to scroll through PB and know that within moments you are totally up to date on just about everything.
We shouldn't have a site almost impossible to use for many readers just so you don't have to switch tabs?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/
...A few months ago, I signed a group letter deploring the growing censoriousness in our culture: “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” A part of the left—admittedly the part most addicted to social media—reacted to this letter with what can only be described as censoriousness, intolerance, and a determination to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.
But anyone who is truly worried by these tendencies should fear the consequences of a second Trump administration even more. Anyone who actually cares about academic freedom, or the future of objective reporting, or the ideas behind the statues built to honor American democrats in the country’s public squares, must hope that Trump loses. If he wins a second term, extremism on the left will not be stopped. It will not grow quieter. Instead, extremism will spread, mutate into new forms, and gradually become entrenched in more areas of American life.
Radicalism of all kinds will spread, on the right as well as the left, because America will find itself deeply enmeshed in the same kind of death spiral that the country experienced in the 1850s, a form of negative politics that the British political scientist Roger Eatwell has called “cumulative extremism.”...
I come to this site - as Topping I suspect and many others do - knowing a spectrum of posts (including Tweets) will be curated and posted here by the users here. That if there's something worthwhile to know someone here will post it. Better than the echo chamber algorithms of social media.
This site works well. Except it recent days not loading sometimes - in which case fixing the issue of why it isn't loading on mobiles is the priority not removing a function that has been there working fine for years.
But I understand there's a problem at the moment. I will try and remember to refrain from adding any tweets as postings at the moment.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure they don't realise that, or mean it that way. They just think they have a scorching point and don't grasp how wrong they are.
This sort of statistical illiteracy and swallowing of codswallop is really common amongst the covid denialists. I'm just completely in the dark over why they do it. They seem absolutely desperate to believe it's just not a thing, no, not a thing, why are people acting like it's a thing, don't they realise it's not a thing at all...
Why?
That suggests a lot of people are reluctantly supporting it for now because they fear there's no alternative, for now, but they're not happy about it and want for someone to give them permission to publicly change their minds.
"Senate Georgia (Regular)
Democrats
MatchedLow: 1.54 High: 2.6
On this market:£1,632
On this selection:£1,175
Last price matched:2
Stop confusing other PBers - betting is a serious business, involving financial risk and we can do without your continuing lies."
This information is freely and readily available from the Betfair Exchange on each and every market it operates, clearly and transparently providing key information on the bets matched on a particular market. In this instance it clearly demonstrates that no bets have been matched at odds as high as 2/1 as repeatedly claimed by Mysticrose.
Or, perhaps more accurately, "when did you stop killing your granny?" question.
They do in Scotland (nationalism), they do in France (Le Pen), they do in England (Corbyn) and they do in Italy (Five Star).
They vote for whoever they think is going to change the system so it works for them.
It will be the printing press. TINA.
However, PB.Com will be slow to load whichever browser I use, unless I block platform.twitter.com
Until recently, applying the same solution to my phone did not work, and I took to disabling Javascript as a workaround.
This morning I find that Android Firefox coupled with uBlock Origin blocking platform.twitter.com works well on my phone, which it didn't do until recently.
OGH's suggestion of using Android DuckDuckGo will work well for those who want speedier reloads, but it will not show any Twitter links at all.
And it's quite a stretch to describe Biden as 'left wing".
Apart for that, agreed - though what she's talking about is a mutual ratcheting up of extremism.
I don't see why that is so misleading really. If I normall win 5k a month, then win 7.5k in a particular month, winning 2.5 the following month isn't anything to worry about
That's populism.
The rest of your post is snobbery mixed in with the fact you don't like left-wing populists being lumped together with right-wing ones. But that doesn't make you right.
So - what on earth is he doing sharing a platform with Lady Gaga? The well-known anti-fracker. I can't imagine anyone more likely to push blue-collar workers, who are maybe thinking about sitting this election out, saying to themselves, "aw, f*ck it, I'm voting Trump, after all."
Madness.
(And not compensated for by Trump's latest bonkers remarks about sacking Fauci. That's factored in already.)
--AS
However, the polling reveals only a need for a short-term comfort blanket, and IMO will quickly change once the economic impact becomes apparent. As with Brexit, the nation's gratitude for saving it from death/foreigners nicking our fish will be short-lived when unemployment's sky high and the money's not there for endless furlough.
I was going to say "no wonder Nige has ridden into town", but interesting to see how it plays out with him railing AGAINST the short-term comfort blanket this time.
The polls would be more interesting if they looked for trends in age or class or profession.
Do young people support these measures as strongly as old? My guess is this is way more popular among the old than the the young. Is there a trend with income ? Again, my guess is this is way more popular with the managerial classes.
Also -- if you could get people to tell the truth -- it would be interesting to poll people as to whether they will really obey all the lockdown measures, or whether they would be willing to commit minor infractions ? My impression is that compliance is becoming laxer.
Data would be nice to confirm or refute.
Whether or not it accurately reflects the situation, or is anywhere near it is a different matter!
Says an awful lot about the current state of the Conservative Party. I think Farage would very likely win the Conservative leadership right now if there was a ballot and he was allowed to stand.
@NateSilver538
This is semi-interesting.
In Nevada, 1.4% of mail ballots so far required a signature cure, when the voter didn't sign the ballot or the sig didn't match the one on file.
Dems have cured 51% of their rejected ballots so far, vs. 35% for Republicans.
That strikes me as more than semi-interesting. It suggests that the Dems have got a much slicker GOTV operation and are actively contacting voters whose ballots were rejected and helping them sort it out.
Trump for El Presidente?