I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
Odd to me too, but not at all unusual in the older generation in the UK too. My own parents were often addressed in correspondence as Mr and Mrs (dad's name) (surname).
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Can people please try and at least get their facts correct.
Actually, after searching a bit more, I am a bit doubtful about that 40 million claim. Apparently it was said in a press conference. But can it be found in any authoritative source?
Well Hancock will have misled the house, because he said 40 million in the HoC. And repeated this claim in many interviews. Seems unlikely.
I think there was an additional 10m added to the original order.
In real terms we have 40m on order to be delivered by the end of March 2021 and the ability to order as many as we want for an unspecified schedule, the EU has 100m on deposit for delivery before the end of June 2021 and then 200m for an unspecified schedule.
The 200m is a phantom figure which is being talked about to make everyone feel better about the failure to secure more than 100m for delivery in 2021. Like us, they are waiting on AZ to come good, they have got 200m doses of that scheduled for 2021 delivery. We should have 20m or so people vaccinated by the end of April 2021, or around 36% of eligible people. The EU will have 50m people vaccinated by the end of 2021 or around 14% of eligible people. That's assuming AZ doesn't get approval, which doesn't seem likely.
In the AZ+Pfizer scenario we have 50m doses on order for H1 2021 and 50m for H2 2021 and the EU had 100m doses on order for 2021 as a whole and then another 100m for 2022 delivery.
By the end of August we should have vaccinated between 40m and 45m people in the UK or around 80% of eligible people. In the same time frame the EU will be sitting at about 30-35% based in scheduled delivery information that has been made public by pharma companies.
On Germany, the reason they are taking priority delivery is that they invested a lot of money in BioNTech and it is a German company and they are manufacturing the dose in Germany. Very similar to our deal with Oxford and AZ.
Overall our vaccine portfolio is actually world beating and we've done very well to stay out of the EU scheme.
The coup is only off because Trump has worked out the military and courts have actually managed to stand up for themselves. Another four years and he'd have probably been able to get enough yes men in place in all places to declare himself emperor for life or some such.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Unless BIden is aware that he can't govern in the Clinton mould, he could do - if he's not in jail.
I don't think he will go to jail. I suspect one of the main reasons for his actions is to make it politically toxic for Biden to pursue criminal charges. I'm sure a word will be had with the SDNY Prosecutor of not to go there.
A fifth of adults in Britain had direct contact indoors with someone who was not in their household or support bubble at the beginning of November, according to a new survey.
The Office for National Statistics found that 22% of those polled had had physical contact with at least one other person when socialising indoors in the previous 24 hours.
The ONS said examples of such contact were hugging, shaking or holding hands or making contact when passing objects.
I did a proof for 3 days in the Lands Tribunal this week. We tried our best to keep socially distanced. Each witness had their own bundle of documents that no one else touched. The witness stand was wiped down and sterilised between each witness. Only 11 people were allowed in the fairly large court room at any one time. But inevitably bits of paper were passed about, especially between agents and counsel and between counsel. We both signed the joint minute for example.
The Tribunal really tried its best but the reality is that there are a lot of things that it is not possible to do properly without some risk of Covid exposure. All you can do is mitigate the risk as well as you can, clean your hands regularly, wear masks in the public parts of the building and keep your distance as much as the occasion allowed.
It is impossible to serve a customer in a shop who won't follow the guidelines. It simply can't be done.
I'm fairly sure the woman who served me this morning was wearing her disposable mask upside down (not inside out, but with the stiffish band at the bottom instead of the top). Whether it matters...
When I went to Sainsbury's the other day there were a lot of older customers with masks covering their mouth but not their nose. I kept my distance.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Unless BIden is aware that he can't govern in the Clinton mould, he could do - if he's not in jail.
I don't think he will go to jail. I suspect one of the main reasons for his actions is to make it politically toxic for Biden to pursue criminal charges. I'm sure a word will be had with the SDNY Prosecutor of not to go there.
Biden's not going to hop in and nix a prosecution on Trump ! He'll stay out of it, as he should.
The bigger issue is are any of the people who think Trump has had the election stolen from him really going to convict him in a jury trial. I doubt it very much.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order..
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Terrifying thought. It was close in key states, it's true. I'd say hopefully his behaviour will put people off backing him 4 years from now but those still on side are probably on side for life.
If the Republicans allow him to be their candidate again they’ll only have themselves to blame. Their problem at the moment is that the party itself is coming across as a threat to democracy. I can’t really see there being enough Q anon sympathisers out there to put them into an election winning position.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
Give that she is 94... Back then, the idea of marriage was that it *was* subsuming one's identity into new "joint" identity. And yes, it was un-equal in this etc.
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Hopeless case, chance of invoices not being paid, likely losing Democrat clients too.
It's beginning to look over, isn't it. What a relief if so.
A smidgen of Betfair reaction. 1.08 now. I will refrain from predicting an imminent collapse in the Trump price since I've done that many times before and been wrong.
It would be a very slippery slope if posters were required to refrain from predictions purely from being wrong many times historically. Predict away.....you will be right sooner or later.
Hed probably love being Leader of the Opposition in a Westminster system, getting to just tell at the government leader every week about how crap they are.
Sure he can still do that, but not from an official position and it's not as satisfying if the opponent doesn't have to answer back.
Trump also gets to do that tweeting from his huge estate in sunny Florida, not a wet Westminster in November
Will he be allowed a cellphone in the Florida State Prison at Raiford?
Hopeless case, chance of invoices not being paid, likely losing Democrat clients too.
It's beginning to look over, isn't it. What a relief if so.
A smidgen of Betfair reaction. 1.08 now. I will refrain from predicting an imminent collapse in the Trump price since I've done that many times before and been wrong.
It would be a very slippery slope if posters were required to refrain from predictions purely from being wrong many times historically. Predict away.....you will be right sooner or later.
- Ok! Right, so mark my words, Biden will be 1.03 on Monday and the market will settle him as the winner by Thursday.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Unless BIden is aware that he can't govern in the Clinton mould, he could do - if he's not in jail.
I don't think he will go to jail. I suspect one of the main reasons for his actions is to make it politically toxic for Biden to pursue criminal charges. I'm sure a word will be had with the SDNY Prosecutor of not to go there.
Biden doesn't get to make that decision. That was one of the things Trump didn't understand when he was calling for Biden to be prosecuted.
A fifth of adults in Britain had direct contact indoors with someone who was not in their household or support bubble at the beginning of November, according to a new survey.
The Office for National Statistics found that 22% of those polled had had physical contact with at least one other person when socialising indoors in the previous 24 hours.
The ONS said examples of such contact were hugging, shaking or holding hands or making contact when passing objects.
I did a proof for 3 days in the Lands Tribunal this week. We tried our best to keep socially distanced. Each witness had their own bundle of documents that no one else touched. The witness stand was wiped down and sterilised between each witness. Only 11 people were allowed in the fairly large court room at any one time. But inevitably bits of paper were passed about, especially between agents and counsel and between counsel. We both signed the joint minute for example.
The Tribunal really tried its best but the reality is that there are a lot of things that it is not possible to do properly without some risk of Covid exposure. All you can do is mitigate the risk as well as you can, clean your hands regularly, wear masks in the public parts of the building and keep your distance as much as the occasion allowed.
It is impossible to serve a customer in a shop who won't follow the guidelines. It simply can't be done.
I'm fairly sure the woman who served me this morning was wearing her disposable mask upside down (not inside out, but with the stiffish band at the bottom instead of the top). Whether it matters...
When I went to Sainsbury's the other day there were a lot of older customers with masks covering their mouth but not their nose. I kept my distance.
That and the taking your mask off to answer the phone. The idea that sound can travel through a mask is somehow beyond their comprehension even though they accept the wonderous technology that allows us to speak to someone the other side of the world on a handheld device without a second thought.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
My wife's aunt sent my wife a birthday card shortly after we got married, addressed to Mrs [My initial, which is different to hers] [My surname]. Surname is fine as she chose to take my surname, but she was not at all impressed at the initial. She took it up with the aunt who told her that it's perfectly correct (some old style guides probably say it is!) She has however used my wife's actual initial since then. Shows how things have changed, I - like you - find it quite unpleasant. Aunt has stated she wants to be addressed (in mail) as Mrs [Husband's name], so we respect that, but it feels weird every time.
(My wife was doubly annoyed by the 'Mrs', given that she is in fact 'Dr')
Hopeless case, chance of invoices not being paid, likely losing Democrat clients too.
It's beginning to look over, isn't it. What a relief if so.
A smidgen of Betfair reaction. 1.08 now. I will refrain from predicting an imminent collapse in the Trump price since I've done that many times before and been wrong.
It would be a very slippery slope if posters were required to refrain from predictions purely from being wrong many times historically. Predict away.....you will be right sooner or later.
- Ok! Right, so Biden will be 1.03 on Monday and the market will settle him as the winner by Thursday.
You must be chuffed with the Florida bet you had on Trumpton !
Predicted precisely the correct state against the tide.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Can people please try and at least get their facts correct.
Actually, after searching a bit more, I am a bit doubtful about that 40 million claim. Apparently it was said in a press conference. But can it be found in any authoritative source?
Well Hancock will have misled the house, because he said 40 million in the HoC. And repeated this claim in many interviews. Seems unlikely.
I think there was an additional 10m added to the original order.
In real terms we have 40m on order to be delivered by the end of March 2021 and the ability to order as many as we want for an unspecified schedule, the EU has 100m on deposit for delivery before the end of June 2021 and then 200m for an unspecified schedule.
The 200m is a phantom figure which is being talked about to make everyone feel better about the failure to secure more than 100m for delivery in 2021. Like us, they are waiting on AZ to come good, they have got 200m doses of that scheduled for 2021 delivery. We should have 20m or so people vaccinated by the end of April 2021, or around 36% of eligible people. The EU will have 50m people vaccinated by the end of 2021 or around 14% of eligible people. That's assuming AZ doesn't get approval, which doesn't seem likely.
In the AZ+Pfizer scenario we have 50m doses on order for H1 2021 and 50m for H2 2021 and the EU had 100m doses on order for 2021 as a whole and then another 100m for 2022 delivery.
By the end of August we should have vaccinated between 40m and 45m people in the UK or around 80% of eligible people. In the same time frame the EU will be sitting at about 30-35% based in scheduled delivery information that has been made public by pharma companies.
On Germany, the reason they are taking priority delivery is that they invested a lot of money in BioNTech and it is a German company and they are manufacturing the dose in Germany. Very similar to our deal with Oxford and AZ.
Overall our vaccine portfolio is actually world beating and we've done very well to stay out of the EU scheme.
Its a good job we weren't waiting on the EU ventilator scheme to save us...they have finally delivered some at the end of October.
First rescEU ventilators dispatched to Czech Republic - Following a request for assistance from the Czech Republic, the EU is immediately sending a batch of 30 ventilators from rescEU.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Terrifying thought. It was close in key states, it's true. I'd say hopefully his behaviour will put people off backing him 4 years from now but those still on side are probably on side for life.
If the Republicans allow him to be their candidate again they’ll only have themselves to blame. Their problem at the moment is that the party itself is coming across as a threat to democracy. I can’t really see there being enough Q anon sympathisers out there to put them into an election winning position.
True. And nothing drives Dem turnout like the experience of Trump in office. He drives Rep turnout too.
Hopeless case, chance of invoices not being paid, likely losing Democrat clients too.
It's beginning to look over, isn't it. What a relief if so.
A smidgen of Betfair reaction. 1.08 now. I will refrain from predicting an imminent collapse in the Trump price since I've done that many times before and been wrong.
It would be a very slippery slope if posters were required to refrain from predictions purely from being wrong many times historically. Predict away.....you will be right sooner or later.
- Ok! Right, so Biden will be 1.03 on Monday and the market will settle him as the winner by Thursday.
You must be chuffed with the Florida bet you had on Trumpton !
Predicted precisely the correct state against the tide.
Yes, thanks for noticing! I did do alright with the betting all told. I would have liked the Big Blue - Texas, Ohio to flip - but it was not to be.
Mind you, in the unlikely event of Trump getting the Nom in 2024 ...
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
My wife's aunt sent my wife a birthday card shortly after we got married, addressed to Mrs [My initial, which is different to hers] [My surname]. Surname is fine as she chose to take my surname, but she was not at all impressed at the initial. She took it up with the aunt who told her that it's perfectly correct (some old style guides probably say it is!) She has however used my wife's actual initial since then. Shows how things have changed, I - like you - find it quite unpleasant. Aunt has stated she wants to be addressed (in mail) as Mrs [Husband's name], so we respect that, but it feels weird every time.
(My wife was doubly annoyed by the 'Mrs', given that she is in fact 'Dr')
I don't want to get too po-faced about things but ... The Patriarchy.
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I think most of the public is well aware that there is a greater chance of them being eaten by a shark in their bath than winning the euromillions, but there are other factors in play for their calculations.
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Can people please try and at least get their facts correct.
Actually, after searching a bit more, I am a bit doubtful about that 40 million claim. Apparently it was said in a press conference. But can it be found in any authoritative source?
Well Hancock will have misled the house, because he said 40 million in the HoC. And repeated this claim in many interviews. Seems unlikely.
I think there was an additional 10m added to the original order.
In real terms we have 40m on order to be delivered by the end of March 2021 and the ability to order as many as we want for an unspecified schedule, the EU has 100m on deposit for delivery before the end of June 2021 and then 200m for an unspecified schedule.
The 200m is a phantom figure which is being talked about to make everyone feel better about the failure to secure more than 100m for delivery in 2021. Like us, they are waiting on AZ to come good, they have got 200m doses of that scheduled for 2021 delivery. We should have 20m or so people vaccinated by the end of April 2021, or around 36% of eligible people. The EU will have 50m people vaccinated by the end of 2021 or around 14% of eligible people. That's assuming AZ doesn't get approval, which doesn't seem likely.
In the AZ+Pfizer scenario we have 50m doses on order for H1 2021 and 50m for H2 2021 and the EU had 100m doses on order for 2021 as a whole and then another 100m for 2022 delivery.
By the end of August we should have vaccinated between 40m and 45m people in the UK or around 80% of eligible people. In the same time frame the EU will be sitting at about 30-35% based in scheduled delivery information that has been made public by pharma companies.
On Germany, the reason they are taking priority delivery is that they invested a lot of money in BioNTech and it is a German company and they are manufacturing the dose in Germany. Very similar to our deal with Oxford and AZ.
Overall our vaccine portfolio is actually world beating and we've done very well to stay out of the EU scheme.
Its a good job we weren't waiting on the EU ventilator scheme to save us...they have finally delivered some at the end of October.
First rescEU ventilators dispatched to Czech Republic - Following a request for assistance from the Czech Republic, the EU is immediately sending a batch of 30 ventilators from rescEU.
They have had to get a load more donated by other European countries from their own supplies to make up the numbers required.
One of the limits on early deliveries is supplies being divided between customers (nations). Even before Trump tried to grab everything, the pharma companies were always going to do a share out.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Unless BIden is aware that he can't govern in the Clinton mould, he could do - if he's not in jail.
I don't think he will go to jail. I suspect one of the main reasons for his actions is to make it politically toxic for Biden to pursue criminal charges. I'm sure a word will be had with the SDNY Prosecutor of not to go there.
Trump needs to be exposed by due process for the charlatan he is, I am thinking specifically his Covid related misinformation, for starters.
Any allegations of tax-evasion, money- laundering and racketeering should be investigated fully by the appropriate authorities. Should these allegations prove Trump's activities are above board, so be it, onward and upward to 2024. Should Trump and his associates be found to have profited from illegality he and they should not be above the law.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Can people please try and at least get their facts correct.
Actually, after searching a bit more, I am a bit doubtful about that 40 million claim. Apparently it was said in a press conference. But can it be found in any authoritative source?
Well Hancock will have misled the house, because he said 40 million in the HoC. And repeated this claim in many interviews. Seems unlikely.
I think there was an additional 10m added to the original order.
In real terms we have 40m on order to be delivered by the end of March 2021 and the ability to order as many as we want for an unspecified schedule, the EU has 100m on deposit for delivery before the end of June 2021 and then 200m for an unspecified schedule.
The UK was the first country to order the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine in July - three and a half months before the EU did.
And some insisted we'd be "out in the cold" because we weren't part of the EU scheme. At some things, nation states are more agile.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Can people please try and at least get their facts correct.
Actually, after searching a bit more, I am a bit doubtful about that 40 million claim. Apparently it was said in a press conference. But can it be found in any authoritative source?
Well Hancock will have misled the house, because he said 40 million in the HoC. And repeated this claim in many interviews. Seems unlikely.
I think there was an additional 10m added to the original order.
Any hard information on this would be welcome. Surely an additional 10 million doses can't have been ordered without some kind of announcement, but there seems to be no sign of it.
I doubt it ever going to come to this, but I do wonder if some of the cases being brought were so weak that they bordered on vexatious litigation, for which there are professional rules against lawyers advancing even if their client requests. If someone asked me to bring a lawsuit on pure hearsay with the intention of overturning an election result I would be re-reading the SRA Code before I took them on.
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I think most of the public is well aware that there is a greater chance of them being eaten by a shark in their bath than winning the euromillions, but there are other factors in play for their calculations.
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
That's fair - I donate to a couple of charity lotteries, mainly to give money. I do think that most people don't appreciate just how unlikely they are to win though.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
I knew a couple who had to deal with people assuming they had done that, as they both went by Chris.
We now have the figures for other parts of the UK. In Wales, an estimated 35,300 people in private households had Covid-19 between 31 October and 6 November.
In Scotland, an estimated 39,700 people in private households had Covid-19 in the week to 6 November.
And in Northern Ireland, an estimated 17,800 people in private households had Covid-19 that week.
The ONS said while its modelling suggested the number of Covid-19 cases for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland had increased, results should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small number of tests and a low number of positives in the sample.
-----
Brave decision to come out of 2 week lockdown and remove tiered restrictions and rule out any new lockdown in Wales.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Can people please try and at least get their facts correct.
Actually, after searching a bit more, I am a bit doubtful about that 40 million claim. Apparently it was said in a press conference. But can it be found in any authoritative source?
Well Hancock will have misled the house, because he said 40 million in the HoC. And repeated this claim in many interviews. Seems unlikely.
I think there was an additional 10m added to the original order.
Any hard information on this would be welcome. Surely an additional 10 million doses can't have been ordered without some kind of announcement, but there seems to be no sign of it.
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I think most of the public is well aware that there is a greater chance of them being eaten by a shark in their bath than winning the euromillions, but there are other factors in play for their calculations.
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
It is a tax on the poor and innumerate.
If you are on 6 figure, a pound or 2 a week on the lottery has a marginal cost of nearly nothing to you. Winning is highly improbable, but that is balanced by the tiny marginal cost of playing
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I think most of the public is well aware that there is a greater chance of them being eaten by a shark in their bath than winning the euromillions, but there are other factors in play for their calculations.
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
That's fair - I donate to a couple of charity lotteries, mainly to give money. I do think that most people don't appreciate just how unlikely they are to win though.
Hondootedly but there is something about buying a ticket for the jackpot when it's, say, £150m.
Those few hours before disappointment are, imo, vital.
As I say, it's an analogy of life. We choose not to/can't think of the end but enjoy the journey.
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
Yes, but that's a different point. The comparison of individual days is indeed stupid, and I also winced at the BBC's reporting yesterday. Nevertheless, the figures by reporting date are useful, so long as the 7-day average is used, and yesterday's spike was large enough to produce an upward blip in the 7-day average.
There is a higher percentage of secondary school pupils testing positive for Covid-19 than any other age group, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.
Based on a national survey, the ONS said an estimated 1.65% of Year 7 to Year 11 students tested positive on 6 November, compared to 1.05% for primary pupils.
It comes as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) examined more than a thousand outbreaks of coronavirus that have occurred since schools reopened in September.
Reopening schools means children aged between 12 and 16 played a "significantly higher role" in spreading infections in households, the scientific advisors said.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has again promoted the use of traditional medicine in fighting coronavirus.
Observing Ayurveda Day – a celebration of traditional medicine - he said: “despite our nation being very populous, the Covid-19 situation is under control because every household is consuming immunity boosters like turmeric milk, the ashwagandha herb, kaadha etc”.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has again promoted the use of traditional medicine in fighting coronavirus.
Observing Ayurveda Day – a celebration of traditional medicine - he said: “despite our nation being very populous, the Covid-19 situation is under control because every household is consuming immunity boosters like turmeric milk, the ashwagandha herb, kaadha etc”.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I think most of the public is well aware that there is a greater chance of them being eaten by a shark in their bath than winning the euromillions, but there are other factors in play for their calculations.
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
It is a tax on the poor and innumerate.
If you are on 6 figure, a pound or 2 a week on the lottery has a marginal cost of nearly nothing to you. Winning is highly improbable, but that is balanced by the tiny marginal cost of playing
If you are on benefit......
Again, don't disagree. I think that is why they went big on the Olympic athletes, sports people saying "thank you" because most people don't connect it with the recipient charity.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
'actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year'
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I think most of the public is well aware that there is a greater chance of them being eaten by a shark in their bath than winning the euromillions, but there are other factors in play for their calculations.
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
The first lottery ticket is actually very good value for most.
For a £2 ticket, £1.80 goes back to society whether in prizes, charity or govt duty.
So you are spending 20p to have a dream of being a millionaire, and plenty of conversations with others about what you would do if you won. Even some of the 20p is recycled into employment and corporate taxes, and it helps keep a wider network of local shops open than it would otherwise.
The issue, as with most addictive behaviours, is a small minority will be addicted and buy multiple tickets - but they are still only getting a dream that they could have had with the single ticket.
There is a higher percentage of secondary school pupils testing positive for Covid-19 than any other age group, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.
Based on a national survey, the ONS said an estimated 1.65% of Year 7 to Year 11 students tested positive on 6 November, compared to 1.05% for primary pupils.
It comes as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) examined more than a thousand outbreaks of coronavirus that have occurred since schools reopened in September.
Reopening schools means children aged between 12 and 16 played a "significantly higher role" in spreading infections in households, the scientific advisors said.
At minimal risk to themselves.
As I have mentioned, just about every uni student I know, including my nieces and nephew either have it or live in a house where someone has it.
So something surely should/could have been worked out to allow them their vital education while protecting others more vulnerable. Perhaps that is what the govt tried and perhaps managed to do.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
Odd to me too, but not at all unusual in the older generation in the UK too. My own parents were often addressed in correspondence as Mr and Mrs (dad's name) (surname).
In 2012, when we became engaged, we received a card addressed in that fashion from my step-mother. As it turned out I took my wife's surname, though it did make me think that Mrs is probably a derivation of Mr's, which was not an entirely inaccurate reflection of the legal situation in Victorian England.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
It's not tactical voting when you can just write down your genuine preferences.
I doubt it ever going to come to this, but I do wonder if some of the cases being brought were so weak that they bordered on vexatious litigation, for which there are professional rules against lawyers advancing even if their client requests. If someone asked me to bring a lawsuit on pure hearsay with the intention of overturning an election result I would be re-reading the SRA Code before I took them on.
It's a poor lookout if the American legal system can't find lawyers who want to take large amounts of actual money for unwinnable cases. Next it will be American doctors telling rich people there's nothing wrong with them.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has again promoted the use of traditional medicine in fighting coronavirus.
Observing Ayurveda Day – a celebration of traditional medicine - he said: “despite our nation being very populous, the Covid-19 situation is under control because every household is consuming immunity boosters like turmeric milk, the ashwagandha herb, kaadha etc”.
There is a higher percentage of secondary school pupils testing positive for Covid-19 than any other age group, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.
Based on a national survey, the ONS said an estimated 1.65% of Year 7 to Year 11 students tested positive on 6 November, compared to 1.05% for primary pupils.
It comes as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) examined more than a thousand outbreaks of coronavirus that have occurred since schools reopened in September.
Reopening schools means children aged between 12 and 16 played a "significantly higher role" in spreading infections in households, the scientific advisors said.
A lockdown with all schools open is neither a lockdown nor does it feel like one.
Mr. G, to be fair, some people are unable to wear them due to breathing difficulties and the like.
How would that stop them wearing a visor though?
If that bad then they should get someone to do their shopping / do it online. Just used as an excuse by ne'er do wells. They should at worst issue special medical cards , not some bit of tat you print off the web either, one with your fizzogg on it
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
Odd to me too, but not at all unusual in the older generation in the UK too. My own parents were often addressed in correspondence as Mr and Mrs (dad's name) (surname).
Exactly it was 100% like that when Britain last was great. Now it is a toilet full of mongrels and comic singers.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
Give that she is 94... Back then, the idea of marriage was that it *was* subsuming one's identity into new "joint" identity. And yes, it was un-equal in this etc.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Terrifying thought. It was close in key states, it's true. I'd say hopefully his behaviour will put people off backing him 4 years from now but those still on side are probably on side for life.
If the Republicans allow him to be their candidate again they’ll only have themselves to blame. Their problem at the moment is that the party itself is coming across as a threat to democracy. I can’t really see there being enough Q anon sympathisers out there to put them into an election winning position.
Remember that Trump is up 9.6 million votes on 2016. It's a stunning result for a defeated first-term incumbent.
Bush I only did a bit better with +11.5 million votes in 2004.
If turnout among Independents, or moderate Republicans is a bit down then Trump would have a decent chance at winning the popular vote.
He's winning the argument among his voters that he won and the Democrats stole the election.
There were an average of 47,700 new cases of Covid-19 a day in homes in England in the week up to 6 November, the Office for National Statistics has estimated.
That's up from an estimated 45,700 new cases a day the previous week.
The ONS said the rate of new infections appeared "to have stabilised at around 50,000.”
That's rather old news though, isn't it? It seems plausible that the stabilisation noted in the ONS report (and reflected in case data) corresponded to the school half-term holidays, but that a possible more recent spike in infections due to the return to school and pre-lockdown socialising has yet to show in their data.
Old news? You mean as in just released by the ONS a few minutes ago. It is the most reliable handle we have on the situation (even if it is backward looking by one week). Thus I wouldn't call it old news at all. You might say new things haven't filtered through yet, but all we can do is go on the data available.
It's old news in the sense that, as you say, it's a lagging indicator. And you are ignoring additional data that we have to go on, which is the more current (though, of course less accurate) case data.
We were informed by the data scrapers on here that when taking into charting by the testing dates, case numbers are flat (even taking into consideration the big headline figure announced yesterday).
Well I'd say that the figure announced yesterday is an indication that cases are indeed beginning to rise again after a period of stability. We'll see if I'm right over the next few days.
Its certainly possible, but the evidence from ONS, REACT and Zoe suggest not. Plus we have been in lockdown-lite in England for over a week now. As ever there is a catch up, and I have consistently said that we should primarily consider the sample date, not the reporting date. I'd be concerned if we ARE seeing an new increase with the current rules in England.
I know everyone keeps banging on about ignoring the data by reporting date. But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 7-day averaged reporting date data is does, in fact, correspond very closely to the final values of the data by specimen date. This means that it is useful as a predictor of the specimen date data and should therefore not be ignored. It is useful as an early, albeit inaccurate, indicator of the upcoming trend.
Which is true, but you should therefore look at the 7-day average including the 30K yesterday, not the single day. I'm not bothered that if you choose to, but I think the BBC in particular has a duty to report better, and not as yesterday - an increase of over 50% in cases in one day. The public at large are not good at stats and probability (hence the National Lottery), and this is misleading when not presented with context.
I think most of the public is well aware that there is a greater chance of them being eaten by a shark in their bath than winning the euromillions, but there are other factors in play for their calculations.
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
It is a tax on the poor and innumerate.
If you are on 6 figure, a pound or 2 a week on the lottery has a marginal cost of nearly nothing to you. Winning is highly improbable, but that is balanced by the tiny marginal cost of playing
If you are on benefit......
Again, don't disagree. I think that is why they went big on the Olympic athletes, sports people saying "thank you" because most people don't connect it with the recipient charity.
The point of the Lottery Fund was to fund the charitable/non-profit endeavours that don't normally get a look in.
There was quite a bit of anger in some waters, at first, that the money wasn't being directed at "the usual things"
National level non-football sport was one of these - there were quite a few angry articles written etc. about elitist sport getting the money. Because professional football, in this country, gets so little money....
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
It's not tactical voting when you can just write down your genuine preferences.
Yet another absolute kicking for the deadbeat unionists, even cheating the losers cannot win.
But given that we were going ahead with Brexit, Theresa May's deal was the least worst outcome. It protected our trade deals, protected the United Kingdom and protected the Northern Ireland peace process.
Only if you buy into the Lancaster House bollocks.
Otherwise Norway for Now (at least 10 years) was the best option. Respect the idiot referendum, don't torpedo trade arrangements or peace in NI, stability for businesses, a chance to observe the EU direction of travel and our own diminished influence for a decade, and make a decision on that basis (rejoin, stay in EEA, exit to Cummings/Farage/Hannan fairyland).
Agree. Norway for Now remains by far the sanest option. It is an amazing failure that Labour + Tory dissidents + LDs + SNP didn't, fairly early on, clearly accept, (as they now have), that Brexit is going to happen because we voted for it and then collectively campaign for EFTA solutions as the best Brexit.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
Odd to me too, but not at all unusual in the older generation in the UK too. My own parents were often addressed in correspondence as Mr and Mrs (dad's name) (surname).
Exactly it was 100% like that when Britain last was great. Now it is a toilet full of mongrels and comic singers.
That's enough of the cask strength turnip juice for you. Back to the regular, with plenty of spring water.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Terrifying thought. It was close in key states, it's true. I'd say hopefully his behaviour will put people off backing him 4 years from now but those still on side are probably on side for life.
If the Republicans allow him to be their candidate again they’ll only have themselves to blame. Their problem at the moment is that the party itself is coming across as a threat to democracy. I can’t really see there being enough Q anon sympathisers out there to put them into an election winning position.
Remember that Trump is up 9.6 million votes on 2016. It's a stunning result for a defeated first-term incumbent.
Bush I only did a bit better with +11.5 million votes in 2004.
If turnout among Independents, or moderate Republicans is a bit down then Trump would have a decent chance at winning the popular vote.
He's winning the argument among his voters that he won and the Democrats stole the election.
It’s not being fully appreciated at the moment, but the GOP is currently doing immense damage to itself as a credible political force. The way it has failed to stand for basic democratic norms over the last week will be remembered for a long time.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
So Labour is the unpatriotic, anti-British party, unless you're in the Scottish central belt in which case they become the patriotic, pro-British choice?
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
My wife's aunt sent my wife a birthday card shortly after we got married, addressed to Mrs [My initial, which is different to hers] [My surname]. Surname is fine as she chose to take my surname, but she was not at all impressed at the initial. She took it up with the aunt who told her that it's perfectly correct (some old style guides probably say it is!) She has however used my wife's actual initial since then. Shows how things have changed, I - like you - find it quite unpleasant. Aunt has stated she wants to be addressed (in mail) as Mrs [Husband's name], so we respect that, but it feels weird every time.
(My wife was doubly annoyed by the 'Mrs', given that she is in fact 'Dr')
Oh dear she must be a hoot at parties, does she expect people to genuflect before her presence as well as address her correctly.
I see there was discussion on here about dead people voting via their widow/widower and the lawyers bringing forward cases.
Apart from the fact that these could never amount to more than a very small handful and could go in either direction it appears that the one brought forward as evidence was actually very much alive and kicking.
The Trumpers assumed it was the dead husband who had voted when it was actually his 94 year old widow which presumably was pretty easy to prove because James and Agnus are clearly different names. Do they not check these things first?
This really is desperate stuff.
Do you have a link for that? I'm quite enjoying reading up the desperate flailing of the Trump campaign while waiting for my pupils to ask me questions via Teams.
Can't find it now. It just came up on my phone. But I can give you context if you want to look for it.
It originally came up on the Trump War Room twitter showing the obituary of the guy who had died and apparently voted and then again on Fox when interviewing Kayleigh Mcenany.
This was the first link that came up when I searched: I wouldn't normally link to them but no one is going to claim that they are left wing...
Interesting, so she registered/voted under her husband's name, taking the archaic Mrs [Husband's first and surnames]. That could potentially explain several of the 'dead' voters. so James Blalock did indeed vote and James Blalock is indeed dead, but it's Mrs James Blalock who voted and Mr James Blalock who is dead.
Do find that somewhat creepy though. Like you somehow become the husband on marriage. Subsuming one's identity into another... Strange.
Odd to me too, but not at all unusual in the older generation in the UK too. My own parents were often addressed in correspondence as Mr and Mrs (dad's name) (surname).
Exactly it was 100% like that when Britain last was great. Now it is a toilet full of mongrels and comic singers.
That's enough of the cask strength turnip juice for you. Back to the regular, with plenty of spring water.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
So Labour is the unpatriotic, anti-British party, unless you're in the Scottish central belt in which case they become the patriotic, pro-British choice?
Yes, while in England and Wales Labour are the main opponents of the Tories, in the central belt Labour are the main opponents of the of the SNP and while Labour are the Tories opponents, the SNP are not only the Tories opponents but also a threat to the unity of our great sovereign nation too so SLab would be the lesser of the 2 evils for Scottish Tories who live in the central belt, albeit they can still vote Tory on the list
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
The Union is dying pal. Put it out of its misery.
No thanks. Perhaps it's days are numbered, but we can fight to the end at least.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
The Union is dying pal. Put it out of its misery.
No thanks. Perhaps it's days are numbered, but we can fight to the end at least.
Well as an Englishman I cannot "fight to save the Union". It has nothing to do with me.
If they want to cost a bunch of Tories their seats and upset Boris, it might do it. Some seats round my way were held by relatively small margins against UKIP in 2013, but with massive Tory majorities in 2017 sans UKIP, so some local incumbents would be nervous at least.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
So Labour is the unpatriotic, anti-British party, unless you're in the Scottish central belt in which case they become the patriotic, pro-British choice?
The Gretna Wormhole as it's known. It's magical properties enables the likes of HYUFD to develop a taste for United Ireland, Saddam luvvin' anti Zionists like Galloway.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
So Labour is the unpatriotic, anti-British party, unless you're in the Scottish central belt in which case they become the patriotic, pro-British choice?
The Gretna Wormhole as it's known. It's magical properties enables the likes of HYUFD to develop a taste for United Ireland, Saddam luvvin' anti Zionists like Galloway.
I would happily vote for Galloway over the SNP whose anti Union message I despise, in fact I would vote for a dead sewer rat over the SNP candidate
Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of Wellcome and a key member of the Sage group of government scientific advisers....
"What’s important at the moment is that countries don’t get fixed on only going to be delivering this one vaccine, because because they are all still in developments. We will learn other things, I believe in the next month of the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, probably the Moderna vaccine, maybe other vaccines that we’ll learn the results of including from China, between now and the end of the year."
Interesting that he seems more confident of results from AstraZeneca in the next month than from Moderna (which the UK doesn't have a order for). I hope that is based on information about the number of infections so far. I would have feared that in the UK we should have to wait for Johnson and Johnson to supplement our meagre order of Pfizer, before AstraZeneca came through.
"meagre"..you mean the order that can do a 1/3 of the population in the next few months. The EU don't have any more per capita.
Lots of criticize the government over COVID, but doing deals on vaccines and ramping up the building of the production facilities aren't one.
The EU have yet to order any of the Pfizer vaccine, because the EMA is still checking it out - they appear to be a bit slow....nowt to do with the move from London, I'm sure.
Meanwhile testing in France is running at around half the rate of the UK....
Everyone's struggling, but the idea that we'd have been better off following EU procurement is for the birds.
I know what you are saying, but they have secured an order.
The European Union has agreed to buy up to 300 million doses of the BioNTech-Pfizer coronavirus vaccine, after it showed strong results in trials. Deliveries are expected to start by the end of this year, the companies said. But the EU refused to provide details on how the vaccine would be rolled out, insisting that "a number of steps" needed to be followed beforehand.
Can people please try and at least get their facts correct.
Actually, after searching a bit more, I am a bit doubtful about that 40 million claim. Apparently it was said in a press conference. But can it be found in any authoritative source?
Well Hancock will have misled the house, because he said 40 million in the HoC. And repeated this claim in many interviews. Seems unlikely.
I think there was an additional 10m added to the original order.
Any hard information on this would be welcome. Surely an additional 10 million doses can't have been ordered without some kind of announcement, but there seems to be no sign of it.
It may just have been added quietly in September/October when Pfizer were selling it to anyone who would take it. I think that's when the EU put their deposit down too. I just take issue with people bandying the 300m figure about because 200m of them haven't got any delivery timeframe, anyone can order undated deliveries, it's not personal.
The like for like comparison with the EU is 40m vs 100m, I've been told by an Italian who is in the Italian vaccine delivery taskforce that they've been told to expect 14m doses in H1 and there's no timeframe for their additional 28m they would be due under the scheme.
Tbf, the EU have done well to secure 100m for 2021 delivery at such late notice, lots of other countries have missed out completey because the US has put suh a huge order in and Japan has a big 2021 order too.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
The Union is dying pal. Put it out of its misery.
No thanks. Perhaps it's days are numbered, but we can fight to the end at least.
Well as an Englishman I cannot "fight to save the Union". It has nothing to do with me.
Just because we don't have a vote doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done or it is nothing to do with us (unless by personal choice, which is fair enough). I find the pretend surprise of some that people outside Scotland might care or that they might be able to comment on it pretty insulting (and it is pretending, I don't accept people are genuinely surprised or think it strange some UK people are interested in what goes on in another part of the UK). The views of the people in Scotland is absolutely paramount and if they wish to go Indy should be able to do so regardless of what anyone else thinks (and unlike HYUFD I think, unfortunately, they have shown another referendum is wanted and would probably succeed), but Scotland is still a part of this country for the moment and it's quite reasonable that fellow citizens of the UK are interested and can involve themselves in something happening in another part of the UK if they want. It's nothing to do with you, fine, but other English people can take a different view and that's perfectly reasonable, so long as there is acceptance of the will of the Scottish people as being of primary importance.
Trump only just lost. Will he win in 2024? The way it looks at the moment, I doubt I will be betting against it.
Terrifying thought. It was close in key states, it's true. I'd say hopefully his behaviour will put people off backing him 4 years from now but those still on side are probably on side for life.
If the Republicans allow him to be their candidate again they’ll only have themselves to blame. Their problem at the moment is that the party itself is coming across as a threat to democracy. I can’t really see there being enough Q anon sympathisers out there to put them into an election winning position.
Remember that Trump is up 9.6 million votes on 2016. It's a stunning result for a defeated first-term incumbent.
Bush I only did a bit better with +11.5 million votes in 2004.
If turnout among Independents, or moderate Republicans is a bit down then Trump would have a decent chance at winning the popular vote.
He's winning the argument among his voters that he won and the Democrats stole the election.
It’s not being fully appreciated at the moment, but the GOP is currently doing immense damage to itself as a credible political force. The way it has failed to stand for basic democratic norms over the last week will be remembered for a long time.
Maybe. It seems like it would, but will it? The Senate runoffs will presumably be a key sign if it has damaged them at all, and I fear that partisanship is such they won't have damaged themselves by it.
Actually there was clearly Tory tactical voting for Labour over SNP once you got to stage 5 on those numbers as well as for the Independent and some LD tactical voting at stage 3, so encouraging actually even if more of it is needed for Labour to beat the SNP in the central belt next year.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
What's more striking is how many refused to transfer to either SNP or Labour. About a thousand Tories refused to support SKS's lot. But it's a local cooncil where (bizarrely) it is a SNP-Labour coalition i/c.
Which partly explains it as Labour and the SNP are in alliance there anyway and the Union is not directly at stake, at Holyrood Labour form part of the Unionist opposition to the SNP with the Tories and the Union is at stake
The Union is dying pal. Put it out of its misery.
No thanks. Perhaps it's days are numbered, but we can fight to the end at least.
Well as an Englishman I cannot "fight to save the Union". It has nothing to do with me.
Comments
In real terms we have 40m on order to be delivered by the end of March 2021 and the ability to order as many as we want for an unspecified schedule, the EU has 100m on deposit for delivery before the end of June 2021 and then 200m for an unspecified schedule.
The 200m is a phantom figure which is being talked about to make everyone feel better about the failure to secure more than 100m for delivery in 2021. Like us, they are waiting on AZ to come good, they have got 200m doses of that scheduled for 2021 delivery. We should have 20m or so people vaccinated by the end of April 2021, or around 36% of eligible people. The EU will have 50m people vaccinated by the end of 2021 or around 14% of eligible people. That's assuming AZ doesn't get approval, which doesn't seem likely.
In the AZ+Pfizer scenario we have 50m doses on order for H1 2021 and 50m for H2 2021 and the EU had 100m doses on order for 2021 as a whole and then another 100m for 2022 delivery.
By the end of August we should have vaccinated between 40m and 45m people in the UK or around 80% of eligible people. In the same time frame the EU will be sitting at about 30-35% based in scheduled delivery information that has been made public by pharma companies.
On Germany, the reason they are taking priority delivery is that they invested a lot of money in BioNTech and it is a German company and they are manufacturing the dose in Germany. Very similar to our deal with Oxford and AZ.
Overall our vaccine portfolio is actually world beating and we've done very well to stay out of the EU scheme.
"You like golf, Mr Trump, don't you?"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2081
(My wife was doubly annoyed by the 'Mrs', given that she is in fact 'Dr')
Predicted precisely the correct state against the tide.
First rescEU ventilators dispatched to Czech Republic - Following a request for assistance from the Czech Republic, the EU is immediately sending a batch of 30 ventilators from rescEU.
https://www.medicalplasticsnews.com/news/first-resceu-ventilators-dispatched-to-czech-republic/
They have had to get a load more donated by other European countries from their own supplies to make up the numbers required.
Mind you, in the unlikely event of Trump getting the Nom in 2024 ...
I always see the lottery as analagous to watching a Beckett play. It has everything: hope, excitement, dreams, expectations, fantasy, ending eventually in disappointment and by implication a lonely, unfulfilled, pointless life, and then death.
Any allegations of tax-evasion, money- laundering and racketeering should be investigated fully by the appropriate authorities. Should these allegations prove Trump's activities are above board, so be it, onward and upward to 2024. Should Trump and his associates be found to have profited from illegality he and they should not be above the law.
And some insisted we'd be "out in the cold" because we weren't part of the EU scheme. At some things, nation states are more agile.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1327249052178771970?s=20
In Scotland, an estimated 39,700 people in private households had Covid-19 in the week to 6 November.
And in Northern Ireland, an estimated 17,800 people in private households had Covid-19 that week.
The ONS said while its modelling suggested the number of Covid-19 cases for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland had increased, results should be interpreted with caution due to the relatively small number of tests and a low number of positives in the sample.
-----
Brave decision to come out of 2 week lockdown and remove tiered restrictions and rule out any new lockdown in Wales.
If you are on 6 figure, a pound or 2 a week on the lottery has a marginal cost of nearly nothing to you. Winning is highly improbable, but that is balanced by the tiny marginal cost of playing
If you are on benefit......
Those few hours before disappointment are, imo, vital.
As I say, it's an analogy of life. We choose not to/can't think of the end but enjoy the journey.
Based on a national survey, the ONS said an estimated 1.65% of Year 7 to Year 11 students tested positive on 6 November, compared to 1.05% for primary pupils.
It comes as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) examined more than a thousand outbreaks of coronavirus that have occurred since schools reopened in September.
Reopening schools means children aged between 12 and 16 played a "significantly higher role" in spreading infections in households, the scientific advisors said.
The Greens did tactically vote for the SNP at stage 4 which really boosted the SNP vote but the Green vote is negligible under FPTP Holyrood or Westminster constituenices
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has again promoted the use of traditional medicine in fighting coronavirus.
Observing Ayurveda Day – a celebration of traditional medicine - he said: “despite our nation being very populous, the Covid-19 situation is under control because every household is consuming immunity boosters like turmeric milk, the ashwagandha herb, kaadha etc”.
Quite.
For a £2 ticket, £1.80 goes back to society whether in prizes, charity or govt duty.
So you are spending 20p to have a dream of being a millionaire, and plenty of conversations with others about what you would do if you won. Even some of the 20p is recycled into employment and corporate taxes, and it helps keep a wider network of local shops open than it would otherwise.
The issue, as with most addictive behaviours, is a small minority will be addicted and buy multiple tickets - but they are still only getting a dream that they could have had with the single ticket.
As I have mentioned, just about every uni student I know, including my nieces and nephew either have it or live in a house where someone has it.
So something surely should/could have been worked out to allow them their vital education while protecting others more vulnerable. Perhaps that is what the govt tried and perhaps managed to do.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1327243198062874627?s=20
Note how different this is to Florida and Texas when they pounced to line their pockets.
Bush I only did a bit better with +11.5 million votes in 2004.
If turnout among Independents, or moderate Republicans is a bit down then Trump would have a decent chance at winning the popular vote.
He's winning the argument among his voters that he won and the Democrats stole the election.
There was quite a bit of anger in some waters, at first, that the money wasn't being directed at "the usual things"
National level non-football sport was one of these - there were quite a few angry articles written etc. about elitist sport getting the money. Because professional football, in this country, gets so little money....
Easiest money ever.
It's the most profitable activity he's discovered in the last couple of decades.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54931544
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1326879651973750788?s=20
The like for like comparison with the EU is 40m vs 100m, I've been told by an Italian who is in the Italian vaccine delivery taskforce that they've been told to expect 14m doses in H1 and there's no timeframe for their additional 28m they would be due under the scheme.
Tbf, the EU have done well to secure 100m for 2021 delivery at such late notice, lots of other countries have missed out completey because the US has put suh a huge order in and Japan has a big 2021 order too.