I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
That's completely the wrong way around. In 2015 they lied and said that they would implement Brexit. It cost many of them (not just in the Labour party in fairness) their seats. They deserved nothing less.
Oh stop this nonsense. "Remainers" would have reluctantly accepted a soft EEA style Brexit. It was May (and Brexiteers in general)'s failure to reach out to "Remainers" at all which resulted in the situation we found ourselves in.
Why are you so angry? You've got everything you wanted. Sunlit uplands await.
My suspicion is cock-up rather than conspiracy. We have seen this sort of thing previously with Betfair, most recently when Theresa May resigned. Betfair does not really understand politics, did not understand the process, so created many markets that are loosely interlinked and not susceptible of settlement at the same time by the same criteria. There may be pressure from large players who have hedged positions across the markets who will be exposed if, say, Biden is called the winner but the PV and ECV markets are left open.
Betfair needs to recruit someone like Shadsy to run politics and not leave it to the teaboy or rugby expert.
For the Exchange market, they have to err on the safe side, since they are merely referees. PaddyPower etc. can afford to make grand gestures settling markets before they've even happened. But if I bet you via Betfair that the Moon is made of green cheese and there is a controversial process for determining this which will end on December 12, why would Betfair say "Hmm, we guess the result will be X" and resolve the bet early, when whoever loses will scream foul and bias?
We all know how it will turn out, just as we know that the Moon isn't made of green cheese. But I don't blame Betfair for wanting the cover of an official certified announcement.
This really is not the flu, irrespective of death rates.
Multi-organ impairment in low-risk individuals with long COVID https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.14.20212555v1.full.pdf ... Between April and September 2020, 201 individuals (mean age 44 (SD 11.0) years, 70% female, 87% white, 31% healthcare workers) completed assessments following SARS-CoV-2 infection (median 140, IQR 105-160 days after initial symptoms). The prevalence of pre-existing conditions (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%; diabetes: 2%; heart disease: 4%) was low, and only 18% of individuals had been hospitalised with COVID-19. Fatigue (98%), muscle aches (88%), breathlessness (87%), and headaches (83%) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ongoing cardiorespiratory (92%) and gastrointestinal (73%) symptoms were common, and 42% of individuals had ten or more symptoms. There was evidence of mild organ impairment in heart (32%), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%), 63 liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%). Single (66%) and multi-organ (25%) impairment was observed, and was significantly associated with risk of prior COVID-19 hospitalisation (p<0.05).
Interpretation: In a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are implications not only for burden of long COVID but also public health approaches which have assumed low risk in young people with no comorbidities...</i>
Has this study taken a group of confirmed Long Covid sufferers, and then analysed what exactly ails them, four months later? Or has it taken a random bunch of low risk people who tested positive for Covid, and then seen if they have any long term damage, and if so, what it is?
The difference is hugely significant, and if we looking at the latter interpretation, then it is quite alarming
Bergamo is doing that. Many of its first review long sufferers are well again, or improved, but some are still ill. I believe they'll be doing a third follow up probably around now
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
That's completely the wrong way around. In 2015 they lied and said that they would implement Brexit. It cost many of them (not just in the Labour party in fairness) their seats. They deserved nothing less.
Oh stop this nonsense. "Remainers" would have reluctantly accepted a soft EEA style Brexit. It was May (and Brexiteers in general)'s failure to reach out to "Remainers" at all which resulted in the situation we found ourselves in.
Why are you so angry? You've got everything you wanted. Sunlit uplands await.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
I was about to make exactly that comment. The May years are history now. Forget that. The Government now has won a big "Get Brexit Done" majority.
What exactly is still stopping Boris and co delivering the Brexit they promised us during the referendum?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
Lesser of two evils is a part of politics.
A false choice.
No, a very real choice.
And we've got the better outcome from a Remainer perspective.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
That's completely the wrong way around. In 2015 they lied and said that they would implement Brexit. It cost many of them (not just in the Labour party in fairness) their seats. They deserved nothing less.
Oh stop this nonsense. "Remainers" would have reluctantly accepted a soft EEA style Brexit. It was May (and Brexiteers in general)'s failure to reach out to "Remainers" at all which resulted in the situation we found ourselves in.
Why are you so angry? You've got everything you wanted. Sunlit uplands await.
May was a Remainer.
... until she decided "Brexit means Brexit", without knowing what Brexit means.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
I was about to make exactly that comment. The May years are history now. Forget that. The Government now has won a big "Get Brexit Done" majority.
What exactly is still stopping Boris and co delivering the Brexit they promised us during the referendum?
Because some Brexiteers like @DavidL seem to be angry that Brexit isn't turning out how they wanted it to and are blaming Remainers for that.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
The EC vote (which happens sometime in December) is projected *by* the state certifications of the results. The ‘projection’ will hold true if there are no faithless electors, which it the situation Betfair are trying to work around.
But remember that Betfair have already settled 44 states on a call. And the remaining 6 have all been called now - so with the possible exception of recount GA the logic of waiting for final certs is not obvious.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
The EC vote (which happens sometime in December) is projected *by* the state certifications of the results. The ‘projection’ will hold true if there are no faithless electors, which it the situation Betfair are trying to work around.
But remember that Betfair have already settled 44 states on a call. And the remaining 6 have all been called now - so with the possible exception of recount GA the logic of waiting for final certs is not obvious.
Was there tons of unmatched money sitting on the state markets, though?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
Lesser of two evils is a part of politics.
A false choice.
No, a very real choice.
And we've got the better outcome from a Remainer perspective.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
The EC vote (which happens sometime in December) is projected *by* the state certifications of the results. The ‘projection’ will hold true if there are no faithless electors, which it the situation Betfair are trying to work around.
That's the way I see it. You could question how they justify settling on most States but not the main event (or few remaining swing States) when the principle is plainly the same.
The practical problem is however the volume of trading still being conducted. I understand their hesitation. I am very pleased however that they have made it clear faithless electors will be ignored. That is just about the only development that could now muddy the waters politically, so it's a relief that for aour Betfair wagers it doesn't matter.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
Lesser of two evils is a part of politics.
A false choice.
No, a very real choice.
And we've got the better outcome from a Remainer perspective.
Then why aren't Remainers happy?
I said better outcome. Politics is about the lesser of two evils, remember.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
Lesser of two evils is a part of politics.
A false choice.
No, a very real choice.
And we've got the better outcome from a Remainer perspective.
Then why aren't Remainers happy?
The current, and probably final, trajectory is to an end-point where Remainers are more "happy" than leavers. Leavers will be furious, which is what Remainers want.
The horror caused by that stupid referendum never ends.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
Not ideal, but you can’t control the weather. If others are determined to do harm, there is not a lot you can do to stop them. Joining in and doing a little bit less harm is no answer.
It absolutely is. Never let the best be the enemy of the good. Its the same sort of idiocy which prevented us from rolling out test and trace on the basis of tests that were "only" 80% accurate. It completely misses the point of what you are trying to achieve which is the best for Britain in light of the choices that Britain has made.
Your analogy only works if you consider May's deal to be "good". Otherwise it's "don't make awful the enemy of bad".
Lesser of two evils is a part of politics.
A false choice.
No, a very real choice.
And we've got the better outcome from a Remainer perspective.
Then why aren't Remainers happy?
The current, and probably final, trajectory is to an end-point where Remainers are more "happy" than leavers. Leavers will be furious, which is what Remainers want.
The horror caused by that stupid referendum never ends.
The better end-point is where everyone is happy, or at least 80% of people.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
The EC vote (which happens sometime in December) is projected *by* the state certifications of the results. The ‘projection’ will hold true if there are no faithless electors, which it the situation Betfair are trying to work around.
But remember that Betfair have already settled 44 states on a call. And the remaining 6 have all been called now - so with the possible exception of recount GA the logic of waiting for final certs is not obvious.
Was there tons of unmatched money sitting on the state markets, though?
I thought I followed politics quite closely, but this news that Carrie Symonds has a really influential role at No 10 did surprise me -Was this such accepted common knowledge over the last year or so that no one bothered talking about it?
Cummings & goings - Is this sacking of an unpopular politico "the kind of division that voters dont like/good for Labour" or is it like the Corbyn suspension/Labour anti semistism split where it "shows strong leadership/absolutely the right thing/bad for Tories etc"
If a PM moves in with a recent head of communications of his governing party, it would be very surprising if the former head of communications had no influence to be honest. Now if a PM were to move in with a pianist, cellist, or similar you would expect less influence.
Off topic, just thinking that Nicola has played a blinder over lockdown. Basically dodged it by waiting for the university cases to burn themselves out rather than being panicked into it by the scientists. She deserves a lot of credit for for not being bounced into it with scary looking graphs with no actual data on them.
Not doing quite so well on Salmond stitch up , the lies are unravelling and she will need to release the evidence at some point. She may not survive that or the lying to parliament on it. One of the coven of witches will crack as the noose tightens.
I must say I thought Boris and Carrie had split up. No idea she was so influential. Not sure why we should be quite so delighted that she and Allegra Stratton (unimpressive in her brief stint on Newsnight) are running the show. Why are they so much better than Cummings? They may be politer and better dressed etc but the problem with this government has been the deeply unimpressive man at the top of it and his frankly second-rate Cabinet.
And while PMs have always had press spokesmen it is the PM who ought to be explaining his policies to Parliament and the nation. That is if he knows what they are. It does seem ironic that a government headed by a journalist has been so bloody awful at communication, beyond 3-word slogans.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
Goodman from ConHome speculating on R4 that Bozo worried that Cummo would resign at a time of his choosing and propel a damaging story into the media as his justification - so pushed him now before he got the chance
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
That's completely the wrong way around. In 2015 they lied and said that they would implement Brexit. It cost many of them (not just in the Labour party in fairness) their seats. They deserved nothing less.
Oh stop this nonsense. "Remainers" would have reluctantly accepted a soft EEA style Brexit. It was May (and Brexiteers in general)'s failure to reach out to "Remainers" at all which resulted in the situation we found ourselves in.
Why are you so angry? You've got everything you wanted. Sunlit uplands await.
And yet when that option was put on the table it didn't get a majority in the house. Starmer played right into the hands of hard leavers.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
There is a paradox Betfair should be mindful of. Their rules say (at least in some markets) that settlement will be on the basis of projections from the election results, notwithstanding later developments. That is fine, and how bookmakers have settled. The trouble is the longer Betfair waits to see what happens, the more they are susceptible to being sued for not acting on a black swan event that happens *before* they settle.
A fair point. I’m not defending their tardiness in settling, just trying to work out what they are doing. Those who are being allowed, some might say encouraged, still to place bets on Trump might feel aggrieved once they lose.
There is a principle in betting that you cant bet after the result is known, or the bet doesnt stand.
Therefore the fact that the market is open and matching millions per day is very important for those who want to understand how it will be settled rather than how they think it should be settled.
Settling on projected EC votes after state certification is certainly within their reasonable discretion and seems to be their plan.
This is plausible.
But remember that Biden has 227 EC votes from states that Betfair have already settled. It would be illogical for settlement of the overall winner to be delayed until those states have now certified. They are done in Betfair world.
They should only wait until a further 43 EC votes have been certified from the 6 states they are still trading - AZ, GA, NV, MI, WI, PA.
Therefore knowing the EC size of each of the above, and also the cert timetable, we can deduce the date on which settlement of the overall market will take place per your theory.
A lot seems to hang on the word "projected".
noneoftheabove writes "projected EC votes after state certification" - but surely once a state has certified the result it is no longer projected.
The EC vote (which happens sometime in December) is projected *by* the state certifications of the results. The ‘projection’ will hold true if there are no faithless electors, which it the situation Betfair are trying to work around.
But remember that Betfair have already settled 44 states on a call. And the remaining 6 have all been called now - so with the possible exception of recount GA the logic of waiting for final certs is not obvious.
Was there tons of unmatched money sitting on the state markets, though?
Probably not. On balance I think our search for sense is fruitless. Per their rules they should have settled on the call of PA. Having not done so - unduly influenced by Donald Trump's bullshit as so many tend to be - they have drifted into a logic free no man's land and are perfectly happy to be there since lots of commissionable cash is still being traded. I'm not too fussed. It will be settled soon.
He'll enjoy being ex-PM a lot more, making money going around the world telling amusing stories about his time in office.
I still think he will have a go for the presidency, perhaps in 2032. Main obstacle would be his giving up American citizenship but there are always lawyers. Even if he cant actually win, he might be able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars out there.
This really is not the flu, irrespective of death rates.
Multi-organ impairment in low-risk individuals with long COVID https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.14.20212555v1.full.pdf ... Between April and September 2020, 201 individuals (mean age 44 (SD 11.0) years, 70% female, 87% white, 31% healthcare workers) completed assessments following SARS-CoV-2 infection (median 140, IQR 105-160 days after initial symptoms). The prevalence of pre-existing conditions (obesity: 20%, hypertension: 6%; diabetes: 2%; heart disease: 4%) was low, and only 18% of individuals had been hospitalised with COVID-19. Fatigue (98%), muscle aches (88%), breathlessness (87%), and headaches (83%) were the most frequently reported symptoms. Ongoing cardiorespiratory (92%) and gastrointestinal (73%) symptoms were common, and 42% of individuals had ten or more symptoms. There was evidence of mild organ impairment in heart (32%), lungs (33%), kidneys (12%), 63 liver (10%), pancreas (17%), and spleen (6%). Single (66%) and multi-organ (25%) impairment was observed, and was significantly associated with risk of prior COVID-19 hospitalisation (p<0.05).
Interpretation: In a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are implications not only for burden of long COVID but also public health approaches which have assumed low risk in young people with no comorbidities...</i>
Has this study taken a group of confirmed Long Covid sufferers, and then analysed what exactly ails them, four months later? Or has it taken a random bunch of low risk people who tested positive for Covid, and then seen if they have any long term damage, and if so, what it is?
The difference is hugely significant, and if we looking at the latter interpretation, then it is quite alarming
It was a prospective study, so it seems the latter. I haven't read the trial registration, though, and I don't know whether those already feeling longer-term effects were more motivated to join, or whether they had to join immediately after COVID diagnosis. It certainly wasn't only a study of confirmed long-term sufferers.
We also don't really know how long minor organ impairment exists after a bad bout of flu, because it isn't routinely checked. But, even so, it's quite clear that COVID takes a much heavier toll on the body than flu. In many and varied ways, the aftereffects of this pandemic are going to echo through the coming decades. Some of these we probably haven't even foreseen yet.
I must say I thought Boris and Carrie had split up. No idea she was so influential. Not sure why we should be quite so delighted that she and Allegra Stratton (unimpressive in her brief stint on Newsnight) are running the show. Why are they so much better than Cummings? They may be politer and better dressed etc but the problem with this government has been the deeply unimpressive man at the top of it and his frankly second-rate Cabinet.
And while PMs have always had press spokesmen it is the PM who ought to be explaining his policies to Parliament and the nation. That is if he knows what they are. It does seem ironic that a government headed by a journalist has been so bloody awful at communication, beyond 3-word slogans.
Me too re Ms Symonds. She had been off the radar for so long, for no obvious reason other than the, well, obvious reason.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
The former I think.
How long does the Pfiser vaccine protect for though? The quantities and organisation needed to administer this every year (or every two years?) is daunting.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
How could you ever measure (or even tell) the difference?
The measure is incidence among a vaccinated population. According to WP: Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction of disease in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. Vaccine efficacy was designed and calculated by Greenwood and Yule in 1915 for the cholera and typhoid vaccines. It is best measured using double-blind, randomized, clinical controlled trials, such that it is studied under “best case scenarios.” Vaccine effectiveness differs from vaccine efficacy in that vaccine effectiveness shows how well a vaccine works when they are always used and in a bigger population whereas vaccine efficacy shows how well a vaccine works in certain, often controlled, conditions. Vaccine efficacy studies are used to measure several possible outcomes such as disease attack rates, hospitalizations, medical visits, and costs.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
I thought I followed politics quite closely, but this news that Carrie Symonds has a really influential role at No 10 did surprise me -Was this such accepted common knowledge over the last year or so that no one bothered talking about it?
Cummings & goings - Is this sacking of an unpopular politico "the kind of division that voters dont like/good for Labour" or is it like the Corbyn suspension/Labour anti semistism split where it "shows strong leadership/absolutely the right thing/bad for Tories etc"
If a PM moves in with a recent head of communications of his governing party, it would be very surprising if the former head of communications had no influence to be honest. Now if a PM were to move in with a pianist, cellist, or similar you would expect less influence.
On the other hand, their thinking might then be so different that it had more influence? Even that seems to apply to the current situation when it comes to badgers.
During one of the contentious votes he was a rebel leader who was offered what he wanted and cried in the Commons that it was 'too late'.
Turns out refusing compromises specifically requested and refusing to back anything like May's softer departure made things harder to achieve, not easier. Now we have a situation approaching with no deal or capitulation the only two seeming alternatives (and the latter would be the perfect start for a new Faragian political vehicle).
I like the sound of a ' new Faragian political vehicle'. Possibly one of the few remaining ways this referendum result can be delayed and ultimately reversed. if necessary with a new referendum
'Rage against the dying of the light. Do not go gentle into that goodnight!'
It is all very well having a new referendum Roger, but with the mess the country is in, why would the EU want us back?
And this time, we would have to sign up to the Euro...
I must say I thought Boris and Carrie had split up. No idea she was so influential. Not sure why we should be quite so delighted that she and Allegra Stratton (unimpressive in her brief stint on Newsnight) are running the show. Why are they so much better than Cummings? They may be politer and better dressed etc but the problem with this government has been the deeply unimpressive man at the top of it and his frankly second-rate Cabinet.
And while PMs have always had press spokesmen it is the PM who ought to be explaining his policies to Parliament and the nation. That is if he knows what they are. It does seem ironic that a government headed by a journalist has been so bloody awful at communication, beyond 3-word slogans.
Of course a better government and cabinet would be great but how can we get there? Under Cummings it was never going to happen as loyalty and incompetence was the desired mix. Now cabinet ministers will start to have more scope and authority, which in turn means many will eventually be sacked for incompetence and replaced.
It is a step in the right direction, nothing more, but nonetheless an improvement.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
I was about to make exactly that comment. The May years are history now. Forget that. The Government now has won a big "Get Brexit Done" majority.
What exactly is still stopping Boris and co delivering the Brexit they promised us during the referendum?
Because some Brexiteers like @DavidL seem to be angry that Brexit isn't turning out how they wanted it to and are blaming Remainers for that.
It does sometimes smack of a mugger beating up his victim when he resists, and saying it's the fault of the victim trhat he has a broken jaw. Anyway, we'll see what Dover is like the morning, week, and month after Ne'erday, not to mention KFC and Tesco's.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Yes, that's the crux of it. They are putting profit ahead of what they would normally do, and the people paying the price are those who would like to reuse their winnings. It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
Strictly it's a reduction in the overall chance of developing a symptomatic case.
I suppose the relevance of the distinction you're making depends on whether there's also a reduction in the spread of the virus that is sufficient to render it very rare or even eradicate it completely. That is obviously the hope.
I think we'll get a clearer picture of the likely effect of these vaccines on the spread of the virus, and also on the degree to which protection correlates with the strength of the immune response in individuals, as more results from the Phase III trials are released.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
Strictly it's a reduction in the overall chance of developing a symptomatic case.
I suppose the relevance of the distinction you're making depends on whether there's also a reduction in the spread of the virus that is sufficient to render it very rare or even eradicate it completely. That is obviously the hope.
I think we'll get a clearer picture of the likely effect of these vaccines on the spread of the virus, and also on the degree to which protection correlates with the strength of the immune response in individuals, as more results from the Phase III trials are released.
If I remember correctly the last generation of smallpox vaccines were 90% effective, but that was still enough to eradicate the disease once it had been used widely enough.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
How could you ever measure (or even tell) the difference?
The measure is incidence among a vaccinated population. According to WP: Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction of disease in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. Vaccine efficacy was designed and calculated by Greenwood and Yule in 1915 for the cholera and typhoid vaccines. It is best measured using double-blind, randomized, clinical controlled trials, such that it is studied under “best case scenarios.” Vaccine effectiveness differs from vaccine efficacy in that vaccine effectiveness shows how well a vaccine works when they are always used and in a bigger population whereas vaccine efficacy shows how well a vaccine works in certain, often controlled, conditions. Vaccine efficacy studies are used to measure several possible outcomes such as disease attack rates, hospitalizations, medical visits, and costs.
So is the 90% the reduction in disease incidence in the vaccinated group vs the placebo group in the study - which would then break transmission chains and multiply the reduction to suppress COVID to a very low incidence disease once done in a large portion of the population. Or is 90% the expected level of suppression only once the vaccine is rolled to the wider population?
I must say I thought Boris and Carrie had split up. No idea she was so influential. Not sure why we should be quite so delighted that she and Allegra Stratton (unimpressive in her brief stint on Newsnight) are running the show. Why are they so much better than Cummings? They may be politer and better dressed etc but the problem with this government has been the deeply unimpressive man at the top of it and his frankly second-rate Cabinet.
And while PMs have always had press spokesmen it is the PM who ought to be explaining his policies to Parliament and the nation. That is if he knows what they are. It does seem ironic that a government headed by a journalist has been so bloody awful at communication, beyond 3-word slogans.
Me too re Ms Symonds. She had been off the radar for so long, for no obvious reason other than the, well, obvious reason.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Yes, that's the crux of it. They are putting profit ahead of what they would normally do, and the people paying the price are those who would like to reuse their winnings. It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Yes, that's the crux of it. They are putting profit ahead of what they would normally do, and the people paying the price are those who would like to reuse their winnings. It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
Doing what you are suggesting is precisely what would cause them legal problems. The bets of Trump backers made post the media projecting couldnt stand if Betfair say they are now settling on the basis of the media projection.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
How could you ever measure (or even tell) the difference?
In an animal experiment you could vaccinate the subjects and then expose them to infection repeatedly. If 90% had complete immunity, 10% would be infected and then the infections would stop. If there was a steady 10% chance of all of them being infected, then the infections would continue until they had all been infected. I think that is what Nick was getting at.
Of course, if the effect of the vaccine wears off, you'd have to do some other experiments to quantify that effect and allow for it.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
How could you ever measure (or even tell) the difference?
The measure is incidence among a vaccinated population. According to WP: Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction of disease in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. Vaccine efficacy was designed and calculated by Greenwood and Yule in 1915 for the cholera and typhoid vaccines. It is best measured using double-blind, randomized, clinical controlled trials, such that it is studied under “best case scenarios.” Vaccine effectiveness differs from vaccine efficacy in that vaccine effectiveness shows how well a vaccine works when they are always used and in a bigger population whereas vaccine efficacy shows how well a vaccine works in certain, often controlled, conditions. Vaccine efficacy studies are used to measure several possible outcomes such as disease attack rates, hospitalizations, medical visits, and costs.
So is the 90% the reduction in disease incidence in the vaccinated group vs the placebo group in the study - which would then break transmission chains and multiply the reduction to suppress COVID to a very low incidence disease once done in a large portion of the population. Or is 90% the expected level of suppression only once the vaccine is rolled to the wider population?
The former - provided the 90% reduction is not just in symptoms but also in infection and transmission.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Yes, that's the crux of it. They are putting profit ahead of what they would normally do, and the people paying the price are those who would like to reuse their winnings. It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Yes, that's the crux of it. They are putting profit ahead of what they would normally do, and the people paying the price are those who would like to reuse their winnings. It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
Doing what you are suggesting is precisely what would cause them legal problems. The bets of Trump backers made post the media projecting couldnt stand if Betfair say they are now settling on the basis of the media projection.
What a sorry mess Betfair has gotten itself into. I've just resolved now not to make any political bets with them in future.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
I believe that it's much better than that because it's not just about protecting you directly. Even if the vaccine were only 50% effective, if everyone had it it would halve the number of people you were likely to pass on to i.e. halving the R rate. So the prevalence of the virus in the community will fall and it would quite rapidly dwindle away and hopefully die out altogether.
So even if you were one of those who was vaccinnated yet were still susceptible, it would still protect you indirectly.
An annoyance is the probably correct assumption that the race director, who still isn't Charlie Whiting and whose name I still cannot remember, is likely to be risk averse to the extent of playing it a bit safe.
I must say I thought Boris and Carrie had split up. No idea she was so influential. Not sure why we should be quite so delighted that she and Allegra Stratton (unimpressive in her brief stint on Newsnight) are running the show. Why are they so much better than Cummings? They may be politer and better dressed etc but the problem with this government has been the deeply unimpressive man at the top of it and his frankly second-rate Cabinet.
And while PMs have always had press spokesmen it is the PM who ought to be explaining his policies to Parliament and the nation. That is if he knows what they are. It does seem ironic that a government headed by a journalist has been so bloody awful at communication, beyond 3-word slogans.
Me too re Ms Symonds. She had been off the radar for so long, for no obvious reason other than the, well, obvious reason.
That she's the mother of a newborn baby?
Does not mean you are locked away for 6 months normally. New mothers occasionally go outdoors.
Off topic, just thinking that Nicola has played a blinder over lockdown. Basically dodged it by waiting for the university cases to burn themselves out rather than being panicked into it by the scientists. She deserves a lot of credit for for not being bounced into it with scary looking graphs with no actual data on them.
Not doing quite so well on Salmond stitch up , the lies are unravelling and she will need to release the evidence at some point. She may not survive that or the lying to parliament on it. One of the coven of witches will crack as the noose tightens.
In non dinosaur land Salmond has a touch of the Jeremy Thorpe's hanging over him.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
IIUC the specific meaning of that number is that the number of vaccine recipients who caught the rona was 10% (or less, I think they allow for sampling error) of the number who caught the rona in the placebo group. So in itself it doesn't mean that it'll stop any given individual from getting the virus if they're exposed to enough of it, although it's possible that it would have that effect. It's also plausible that of the people who had the vaccine and still get the virus will have less severe symptoms, this is also not covered either way in the 90% number.
Off topic, just thinking that Nicola has played a blinder over lockdown. Basically dodged it by waiting for the university cases to burn themselves out rather than being panicked into it by the scientists. She deserves a lot of credit for for not being bounced into it with scary looking graphs with no actual data on them.
Not doing quite so well on Salmond stitch up , the lies are unravelling and she will need to release the evidence at some point. She may not survive that or the lying to parliament on it. One of the coven of witches will crack as the noose tightens.
In non dinosaur land Salmond has a touch of the Jeremy Thorpe's hanging over him.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
I believe that it's much better than that because it's not just about protecting you directly. Even if the vaccine were only 50% effective, if everyone had it it would halve the number of people you were likely to pass on to i.e. halving the R rate. So the prevalence of the virus in the community will fall and it would quite rapidly dwindle away and hopefully die out altogether.
So even if you were one of those who was vaccinnated yet were still susceptible, it would still protect you indirectly.
If the 90% can still be asymptomatic infectious carriers then the vaccine won't reduce R. Indeed, it may actually increase R as more infectious people will still be out and about rather than self isolating. This would be a bit of a bugger for the remaining 10%.
Hopefully this isn't the case, and the 90% are not infectious if exposed to the virus. In this case, R drops by 90% and the virus burns itself out in short order.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
IIUC the specific meaning of that number is that the number of vaccine recipients who caught the rona was 10% (or less, I think they allow for sampling error) of the number who caught the rona in the placebo group. So in itself it doesn't mean that it'll stop any given individual from getting the virus if you're exposed to enough of it, although it's possible that it would have that effect. It's also plausible that of the people who had the vaccine and still get the virus will have less severe symptoms, this is also not covered either way in the 90% number.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
IIUC the specific meaning of that number is that the number of vaccine recipients who caught the rona was 10% (or less, I think they allow for sampling error) of the number who caught the rona in the placebo group. So in itself it doesn't mean that it'll stop any given individual from getting the virus if you're exposed to enough of it, although it's possible that it would have that effect. It's also plausible that of the people who had the vaccine and still get the virus will have less severe symptoms, this is also not covered either way in the 90% number.
So would the process mean that its well over 90% effective in the long run?
In week 1 - its 90% In week 2 - R has dropped significantly so its 90% of a smaller pool of people than it would have been otherwise? And so on?
Yes, I guess all things being equal if you had R of 3 before the response, and you stop the response and vaccinate everybody, you'll end up with R of 0.3 and the virus will mostly disappear, ie you'll still get occasional sporadic clusters where a covid sufferer goes to choir practice in an unventilated room or whatever, but they'll fizzle out.
Obviously in the real world all things aren't quite equal and not everyone will get vaccinated, but it feels like it should be enough to squish it and go back to normal life - provided the protection lasts.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
IIUC the specific meaning of that number is that the number of vaccine recipients who caught the rona was 10% (or less, I think they allow for sampling error) of the number who caught the rona in the placebo group. So in itself it doesn't mean that it'll stop any given individual from getting the virus if you're exposed to enough of it, although it's possible that it would have that effect. It's also plausible that of the people who had the vaccine and still get the virus will have less severe symptoms, this is also not covered either way in the 90% number.
So would the process mean that its well over 90% effective in the long run?
In week 1 - its 90% In week 2 - R has dropped significantly so its 90% of a smaller pool of people than it would have been otherwise? And so on?
Yes, I guess all things being equal if you had R of 3 before the response, and you stop the response and vaccinate everybody, you'll end up with R of 0.3 and the virus will mostly disappear, ie you'll still get occasional sporadic clusters where a covid sufferer goes to choir practice in an unventilated room or whatever, but they'll fizzle out.
Obviously in the real world all things aren't quite equal and not everyone will get vaccinated, but it feels like it should be enough to squish it and go back to normal life - provided the protection lasts.
Thats fantastic, even if we need to take it annually. (And the bastard doesnt mutate which it probably will!)
With bits and bobs, some CA and a big chunk of NY to report it looks like overall turnout will be around 158M. So just shy of my projection of 160M. Not too shaby.
O/T: an interesting question occurs to me about the 90% effectiveness of the vaccine (assuming that it's borne out). Does it mean that 90% of us will never catch the infection if we've been vaccinated? Or that the risk of catching it at any given moment is reduced by 90%, but we're all still vulnerable? The first allows life to resume as normal, if we're individually willing to accept a 10% risk. The second implies the need for permanent social distancing etc., since in that case it's otherwise just a matter of (longer) time before you catch it.
Take 4,000 IU/day vitamin D to boost your immunity and wait for a different vaccine with less secrecy surrounding its testing. Don't wait for the NHS establishment to catch up because you might become ill meanwhile ...
I must say I thought Boris and Carrie had split up. No idea she was so influential. Not sure why we should be quite so delighted that she and Allegra Stratton (unimpressive in her brief stint on Newsnight) are running the show. Why are they so much better than Cummings? They may be politer and better dressed etc but the problem with this government has been the deeply unimpressive man at the top of it and his frankly second-rate Cabinet.
And while PMs have always had press spokesmen it is the PM who ought to be explaining his policies to Parliament and the nation. That is if he knows what they are. It does seem ironic that a government headed by a journalist has been so bloody awful at communication, beyond 3-word slogans.
Me too re Ms Symonds. She had been off the radar for so long, for no obvious reason other than the, well, obvious reason.
That she's the mother of a newborn baby?
Not sufficient in itself, given the media interest in her. She'd have to make an active decision to keep out of things for n months, which is of course very likely. Or I don't read the DM or something.
Thanks for the interesting responses to my question. We don't quite know, specifically on people who are asymptomatic perhaps still acting as carriers, but it does look hopeful.
Off topic, just thinking that Nicola has played a blinder over lockdown. Basically dodged it by waiting for the university cases to burn themselves out rather than being panicked into it by the scientists. She deserves a lot of credit for for not being bounced into it with scary looking graphs with no actual data on them.
Well, whatever has been done in Scotland has been sufficient to reduce hospital admissions, and so the numbers in hospital are now also starting to decline - that says more about the prevalence of infection among older age groups than university students.
In England, whatever was being done before lockdown wasn't enough to bring hospitalisations down. Daily admissions numbers are still going up.
So there is more going on then simply Sturgeon holding her nerve while the surge in case numbers from university students burns itself out. There's a real difference in hospitalisation numbers. England Scotland
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
As a further point, you Brexiteers seem to think that "Remainers" would bite your hand off for May's deal right now. The fact is that isn't true.
I couldn't care less if we have May's deal or if we have no deal. They are both a hard Brexit, and I want a soft Brexit with close EU alignment. I want Britain to be part of the single market.
So we are where we are. I'm looking forward to these promised sunlit uplands.
May's deal would have meant effectively Single Market and Customs Union terms until the next election. If you consider that hard then what is soft?
The "backstop" was simply an endless transition. We're not talking about transitions, we're talking about final destinations.
Johnson's deal kept us in the Single Market and Customs Union for a year (at least). That doesn't mean it's a "soft Brexit".
Key word being endless.
Nothing is final. Why would you talk about final? The difference is that Johnson's deal provided a way out within a year, May's did not. That is why Leavers opposed May's.
Why are you trying to convince me that May's deal was what I wanted? It wasn't.
The current situation is much preferable to me because we get a "pure" Brexit. There's no stab in the back myth and no enduring legacy. We get to see the reality of what was promised.
I'm glad May's deal was defeated.
But May's deal was undeniably far softer than what we have got. If people wanted a softer Brexit not a purer Brexit then May's deal was the one to go for.
Thank goodness they didn't.
But the only difference between May's deal and Johnson's deal was in the consequences of no deal at the end of the transition. So far, what we've got is identical, and any possible deal Johnson might do on the future relationship could also have been done under May's deal.
If the 90% can still be asymptomatic infectious carriers then the vaccine won't reduce R. Indeed, it may actually increase R as more infectious people will still be out and about rather than self isolating. This would be a bit of a bugger for the remaining 10%.
Hopefully this isn't the case, and the 90% are not infectious if exposed to the virus. In this case, R drops by 90% and the virus burns itself out in short order.
Is "infectious but tests consistently negative" a thing? My assumption was that if you're emitting enough of the virus to spread then it'll be detectable, therefore covered in the 10% they report as getting infected despite the vaccine.
The current, and probably final, trajectory is to an end-point where Remainers are more "happy" than leavers. Leavers will be furious, which is what Remainers want.
No. What we want is our rights back and our businesses not to be crippled by bureaucracy. Leavers got what they wanted - we left. We Brexited in January, so I wish that they would stop moaning about their victory.
From the Remain perspective, it is not my fault that you won. The Leave campaigns lied repeatedly about being £350m better off each week and that all of Turkey would migrate to the UK after converting the EU to a Caliphate, that we would be drowning in mountains of our own fish and freed up from huge amounts of red tape.
And every single word of it was a lie.
When this was pointed out it was "Project Fear". Those nasty Remainers were trying to scare voters.
We have spent years shouting until we are blue in the face that the lies are fantasies and Brexit is just a big unicorn hunt
So hard cheese. You won. This is your victory.
Now kindly shut up and sort out the mess you made. Or at least have the guts to own up to shambles Leave has created.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Perhaps but remember Betfair's commission is on net winnings so people trading in and out does not increase that, and it ties up money punters might reinvest in other markets where Betfair can charge more commission.
My suspicion is cock-up rather than conspiracy. We have seen this sort of thing previously with Betfair, most recently when Theresa May resigned. Betfair does not really understand politics, did not understand the process, so created many markets that are loosely interlinked and not susceptible of settlement at the same time by the same criteria. There may be pressure from large players who have hedged positions across the markets who will be exposed if, say, Biden is called the winner but the PV and ECV markets are left open.
Betfair needs to recruit someone like Shadsy to run politics and not leave it to the teaboy or rugby expert.
The last point is a particularly good one and is true of many bookies. Ladbrokes are particularly fortunate to have Shadsy but he is an exception. My belief is that he just happened to be very interested in politics so he was a good fit. I don't think Ladbrokes went round looking for a politics expert. In fact I suspect The Magic Sign are not much different to other large bookies in that they regard politics as a bit of an oddball 'sport', don't really understand the subject and are happy to leave it to the tea boy if there isn't a Shadsy readily available.
Sporting Index used to be hopeless but my impression is that they now have a specialist politics man and nobody else touches the subject. If he isn't around when you call, you get stonewalled. I think this accounts for the regularity with which the markets are suspended. If there is any risk he switches them off when he leaves the offices and nobody else has the authority to switch them back on.
This can be a pain sometimes but it's better than having a know-nothing in charge, and they do take some care to make sure the politics rules are clear and properly implemented.
Betfair moved their CS to Romania about two years ago and it has been toilet ever since
Thanks for the interesting responses to my question. We don't quite know, specifically on people who are asymptomatic perhaps still acting as carriers, but it does look hopeful.
What you also have to remember is the methodology underlying pfizer vaccine has shown to work even better than anybody hoped. There are already other vaccine candidates based on the same.idea that overcome some of the downsides e.g. Imperial vaccine doesn't need super cooling.
So I think we should be positive that even if gen 1 of the vaccine does only provide 1-2 years protection, I think we will continue to see improvements such that either the length of protection increases and / or administering it becomes simple. We already do millions and millions of flu jabs each year with no fuss.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Yes, that's the crux of it. They are putting profit ahead of what they would normally do, and the people paying the price are those who would like to reuse their winnings. It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
State betting:- AZ Dem 1.04 GA Dem 1.06 MI Dem 1.04 NV Dem 1.04 NC Rep no offers but you can lay Dem at 900 PA Dem 1.07 WI Dem 1.07
I can just about understand it. There have been some very lumpy bets placed on Trump very recently, and as we know, rich Republican sympathisers can be very litigious. And it’s surely also the largest political betting book of anyone’s. If this goes on for much longer, though, it will become both stupid and dangerous to their reputation.
The problem is lack of clarity in the rules. If they had said this betting market will be settled on the day the college actually meets to sign off on the ECV vote from the individual states then we wouldn't be bothered.
But it doesn't. It talks about "projected".
I read "projected" purely to mean that they will settle based on how the EC members are supposed to vote, rather than how any who switch sides actually vote?
Indeed. The rules specifically rule out "faithless" ECV voters.
I am getting pretty fed up now. It is clear Biden has won. There is no doubt that the networks settled projection is correct. No legal challenge has got out of first base and indeed lawyers are refusing to continue to work on the pointless actions.
Pay up BF.
The problem for them will be the people on the other side of the bet who would argue that they still have a chance of winning, however slim.
Why should BF indulge that view? It's completely detached from reality. If I were to complain that my bet on Man City winning the 2019-20 Premier League shouldn't be settled yet because who knows maybe Liverpool will be retrospectively disqualified for some imagined breach of rules, should I be taken seriously? Of course not.
The practical problem is the sheer volume of bets still going on Trump.
I understand your logic but as long as people are betting on Trump in substantial amounts it suggests that they think there is a material chance he can still win. I am buggered if I can think how and why that might be but the fact remains considerable numbers think he can. They don't have to give a reason and Betfair would be taking a big risk if they proclaimed that there is none.
They are entitled to think that as long as there are such punters around, they are providing the likes of you and me the opportunty to pick up easy money. So what's the problem? If the Trump backers are manifestly wrong then take them to the cleaners. He'll be gone soon enough. No need for them to pre-empt matters.
I think there is a substantial weight of well-financed opinion that believes that somehow the Orange Goon is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat at the eleventh hour. As long as that remains a possibility, no way are Betfair going to settle.
Yes, Under their rules they should have settled on the PA call at which point there was a winner who had "a majority of the projected votes in the electoral college". Having failed to do that, they are now in a no man's land with no clear and obvious future event to hang the settlement on. But they won't care for the reasons you say. And I don't care either. I'm content to wait a little longer for my money.
It’s really simple. They’re waiting for the official election results to be announced in each State. They’re not settling purely because CNN say Biden won.
Just maybe there's the additional factor that they are doing very nicely out of the large amounts still being bet on the market?
Yes, that's the crux of it. They are putting profit ahead of what they would normally do, and the people paying the price are those who would like to reuse their winnings. It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
Doing what you are suggesting is precisely what would cause them legal problems. The bets of Trump backers made post the media projecting couldnt stand if Betfair say they are now settling on the basis of the media projection.
What a sorry mess Betfair has gotten itself into. I've just resolved now not to make any political bets with them in future.
My state combo bet with Paddys still isnt settled (FL, PA, MI, WI, NH,AZ), nor my Trump 200-249 ECVs with Betvictor. i presume they're both waiting for official confirmation from states. I hope BV isnt waiting for the college to actually meet and vote.
Thanks for the interesting responses to my question. We don't quite know, specifically on people who are asymptomatic perhaps still acting as carriers, but it does look hopeful.
What you also have to remember is the methodology underlying pfizer vaccine has shown to work even better than anybody hoped. There are already other vaccine candidates based on the same.idea that overcome some of the downsides e.g. Imperial vaccine doesn't need super cooling.
So I think we should be positive that even if gen 1 of the vaccine does only provide 1-2 years protection, I think we will continue to see improvements such that either the length of protection increases and / or administering it becomes simple. We already do millions and millions of flu jabs each year with no fuss.
If there weren't such incredible time pressure, Pfizer would probably have continued working on their vaccine until they found a version that could be distributed more easily before commercialising it.
Off topic, just thinking that Nicola has played a blinder over lockdown. Basically dodged it by waiting for the university cases to burn themselves out rather than being panicked into it by the scientists. She deserves a lot of credit for for not being bounced into it with scary looking graphs with no actual data on them.
Well, whatever has been done in Scotland has been sufficient to reduce hospital admissions, and so the numbers in hospital are now also starting to decline - that says more about the prevalence of infection among older age groups than university students.
In England, whatever was being done before lockdown wasn't enough to bring hospitalisations down. Daily admissions numbers are still going up.
So there is more going on then simply Sturgeon holding her nerve while the surge in case numbers from university students burns itself out. There's a real difference in hospitalisation numbers. England Scotland
Where was that from, please? (Very relevant to some fairly fraught family decision making at present, so thank you.) I can see the URLs but not sure where the primary link is for looking it up in future dates.
To echo Wulfrun Phil further down the thread, the NEC result is very good news for Keir Starmer. This is from the pro-left Labour List:
Corbynites lost three seats (local party and BAME) in the April by-elections, and have now lost a further two in the members’ section. There has been a swing of 10% from Momentum to Labour to Win since the last full NEC elections in 2018, with Momentum securing 37% (-19) this time, Labour to Win 31% (+1) and Open Labour 9% (+5). The left vote was also down by nine percentage points compared to earlier this year. Keir Starmer can be encouraged by the overall trajectory of the party.
The current, and probably final, trajectory is to an end-point where Remainers are more "happy" than leavers. Leavers will be furious, which is what Remainers want.
No. What we want is our rights back and our businesses not to be crippled by bureaucracy. Leavers got what they wanted - we left. We Brexited in January, so I wish that they would stop moaning about their victory.
From the Remain perspective, it is not my fault that you won. The Leave campaigns lied repeatedly about being £350m better off each week and that all of Turkey would migrate to the UK after converting the EU to a Caliphate, that we would be drowning in mountains of our own fish and freed up from huge amounts of red tape.
And every single word of it was a lie.
When this was pointed out it was "Project Fear". Those nasty Remainers were trying to scare voters.
We have spent years shouting until we are blue in the face that the lies are fantasies and Brexit is just a big unicorn hunt
So hard cheese. You won. This is your victory.
Now kindly shut up and sort out the mess you made. Or at least have the guts to own up to shambles Leave has created.
I agree with a lot of that. To clarify - I voted to remain.
Doesn`t alter the fact that most who voted to leave the EU do not want an end-point which doesn`t give us back the control that they wanted. And this is the end-point that I believe Johnson is heading towards.
"Project Fear" was project reality. In 2016 I tried and tried to convince those that intended to vote to leave, but failed.
I thought I followed politics quite closely, but this news that Carrie Symonds has a really influential role at No 10 did surprise me -Was this such accepted common knowledge over the last year or so that no one bothered talking about it?
Cummings & goings - Is this sacking of an unpopular politico "the kind of division that voters dont like/good for Labour" or is it like the Corbyn suspension/Labour anti semistism split where it "shows strong leadership/absolutely the right thing/bad for Tories etc"
There were tidbits about Symonds being opposed to the badger cull, and having some influence. Not sure how true the latest gossip is, but it makes for a good story, and it's the sort of story that has long provenance in English history - the influence of a Queen on the King.
Cummings is certainly unpopular, so you would think his going would have to be a plus for the government, though they might not get any credit for it due to the delay since Barnard Castle. At least with Corbyn you can say that he was given the heave-ho on the same day that he downplayed the anti-semitism report. As to the rest, that rather depends on whether what's left of the Number Ten team can pull together and lead the Cabinet with them, or whether a pattern of behaviour of infighting and jostling for the ear of the PM has become dominant.
The current, and probably final, trajectory is to an end-point where Remainers are more "happy" than leavers. Leavers will be furious, which is what Remainers want.
No. What we want is our rights back and our businesses not to be crippled by bureaucracy. Leavers got what they wanted - we left. We Brexited in January, so I wish that they would stop moaning about their victory.
From the Remain perspective, it is not my fault that you won. The Leave campaigns lied repeatedly about being £350m better off each week and that all of Turkey would migrate to the UK after converting the EU to a Caliphate, that we would be drowning in mountains of our own fish and freed up from huge amounts of red tape.
And every single word of it was a lie.
When this was pointed out it was "Project Fear". Those nasty Remainers were trying to scare voters.
We have spent years shouting until we are blue in the face that the lies are fantasies and Brexit is just a big unicorn hunt
So hard cheese. You won. This is your victory.
Now kindly shut up and sort out the mess you made. Or at least have the guts to own up to shambles Leave has created.
Over 50% of voters were unhappy with the status quo at the referendum, it's better to address that, it would have been even had Remain won 51/49, than keep moaning about losing
The current, and probably final, trajectory is to an end-point where Remainers are more "happy" than leavers. Leavers will be furious, which is what Remainers want.
No. What we want is our rights back and our businesses not to be crippled by bureaucracy. Leavers got what they wanted - we left. We Brexited in January, so I wish that they would stop moaning about their victory.
From the Remain perspective, it is not my fault that you won. The Leave campaigns lied repeatedly about being £350m better off each week and that all of Turkey would migrate to the UK after converting the EU to a Caliphate, that we would be drowning in mountains of our own fish and freed up from huge amounts of red tape.
And every single word of it was a lie.
When this was pointed out it was "Project Fear". Those nasty Remainers were trying to scare voters.
We have spent years shouting until we are blue in the face that the lies are fantasies and Brexit is just a big unicorn hunt
So hard cheese. You won. This is your victory.
Now kindly shut up and sort out the mess you made. Or at least have the guts to own up to shambles Leave has created.
I agree with a lot of that. To clarify - I voted to remain.
Doesn`t alter the fact that most who voted to leave the EU do not want an end-point which doesn`t give us back the control that they wanted. And this is the end-point that I believe Johnson is heading towards.
"Project Fear" was project reality. In 2016 I tried and tried to convince those that intended to vote to leave, but failed.
One of the problems we have is that what we were told we were going to get in 2016 is not what we will end up with in 2021. The piece that Johnson wrote for the Telegraph immediately after the referendum is well worth a read as a starting point on that. It is also very clear we are not going to be part of a free trade bloc stretching from the Urals to the Atlantic. The German car makers have less than a week now to ride to the rescue.
Just as Trump can't accept that he lost, so Brexiteers can't accept that it's a disaster
Both will face reality in January
Neither will take it well
Inability to accept defeat seems to be par for the course #fouryearsago
Spending the next 4-??? years after a political defeat as a professional retweeter = taking it well.
Apparently.
Remainers seem to be human Spreadsheets who malfunction when something other than what they have been taught at University is input to the debate, and just cant continue until the alien views are deleted
The current, and probably final, trajectory is to an end-point where Remainers are more "happy" than leavers. Leavers will be furious, which is what Remainers want.
No. What we want is our rights back and our businesses not to be crippled by bureaucracy. Leavers got what they wanted - we left. We Brexited in January, so I wish that they would stop moaning about their victory.
From the Remain perspective, it is not my fault that you won. The Leave campaigns lied repeatedly about being £350m better off each week and that all of Turkey would migrate to the UK after converting the EU to a Caliphate, that we would be drowning in mountains of our own fish and freed up from huge amounts of red tape.
And every single word of it was a lie.
When this was pointed out it was "Project Fear". Those nasty Remainers were trying to scare voters.
We have spent years shouting until we are blue in the face that the lies are fantasies and Brexit is just a big unicorn hunt
So hard cheese. You won. This is your victory.
Now kindly shut up and sort out the mess you made. Or at least have the guts to own up to shambles Leave has created.
I agree with a lot of that. To clarify - I voted to remain.
Doesn`t alter the fact that most who voted to leave the EU do not want an end-point which doesn`t give us back the control that they wanted. And this is the end-point that I believe Johnson is heading towards.
"Project Fear" was project reality. In 2016 I tried and tried to convince those that intended to vote to leave, but failed.
Sorry, that was not directed at you. The I got a bit annoyed whilst typing and the "you" is the collective group of Leavers....
Just as Trump can't accept that he lost, so Brexiteers can't accept that it's a disaster
Both will face reality in January
Neither will take it well
Inability to accept defeat seems to be par for the course #fouryearsago
The thing is, it isn't a game. The effects of brexit aren't going to be any different because it resulted from a reeferendum, than they would have been if it had been enacted by the government of the day under the Royal Prerogative without a vote in sight. Why make it about a detail of process which, as you say, was now #fouryearsago anyway?
For those wondering about how the Labour NEC elections have changed Starmer's ability to push things through, here's a summary. I'll concentrate on the posts for which ordinary members had an input - the councillors representation was unchanged and the Treasurer post wasn't seriously contested.
At the previous full round of elections in 2018, Momentum had secured a rule change to increase the CLP representatives from 6 to 9 to bolster Corbyn's position, all elected by FPTP. The result: Momentum had 9 CLP, plus 1 youth plus 1 Wales (appointed by Drakeford). Total 11 Momentum, Others nil.
After the Spring 2000 by elections, LTW picked up 2 Constituency seats, largely because the far left couldn't agree on candidates and split their vote. So Momentum had 7 CLP, plus 1 youth plus 1 Wales appointed. Total 9 Momentum, 2 LTW. But with Starmer's election, the leadership and front bench appointees to the NEC also changed. Even so, Starmer could at that point rely on no more than a narrow NEC majority of about 2, which would have fallen to 1 had one of the Momentum CLP reps (Willsman) not been suspended.
That narrow majority was however enough for Starmer to push through a crucial change to the NEC constituency voting from FPTP to STV for November's elections. After the latest round of voting, the results in the above seats are: CLP: Momentum 5, LTW 3, Open Labour 1 (Black). Youth: Momentum 1. Wales: LTW 1 Disabled (new seat): Momentum 1
So compared to the Spring, Momentum are down from a total of 9 to 7, LTW up from 2 to 4 and Open Labour up from 0 to 1 (Black). On key votes, I think that Black will act in a way that is critical but supportive of Starmer's leadership, and she was instrumental in promoting the change in the voting system that diluted Momentum's grip. She'll at least consider things on their merits, rather than from a partisan far left factional line. So Momentum down 2, Non-Momentum up 3.
That's a net shift since the Spring in Starmer's favour of 5, bringing his minimum working majority up from 1 to 6. The switch in Wales is a notable bonus to what might have been expected.
Leonard in the meanwhile has insisted that the Scotland NEC seat should remain reserved for the Scottish leader. In 2021, Leonard seems sure to be replaced, so at that point I would expect Starmer's minimum majority to increase further to 8.
Overall, I'm sure that Starmer will be very pleased at the practical outcome of a much strengthened hand. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
Labour NEC Elections: Further details now emerging on how the first preference votes split for the successful CLP candidates.
1 Luke Akehurst Labour to Win 21,355 2 Laura Pidcock Momentum/Grassroots Voice 15,668 3 Johanna Baxter Labour to Win 9,803 4 Gemma Bolton Momentum/Grassroots Voice 9,596 5 Gurinder Singh Josan Labour to Win 4,624 6 Ann Black Open Labour 7,813 7 Yasmin Dar Momentum/Grassroots Voice 6,322 8 Nadia Jama Momentum/Grassroots Voice 5,707 9 Mish Rahman Momentum/Grassroots Voice 5,879
I don't have full details of the other candidates, but the first two LTW candidates to be eliminated had <2k votes even after transfers, whereas the one unsuccessful Momentum candidate was the last to be eliminated.
What's apparent from that is that LTW had very skewed first preferences, giving far too many to Akehurst than necessary, whereas Momentum spread theirs out more effectively. Adding the votes together, the 3 successful LTW candidates had about the same number in total as the 5 Momentum candidates, so LTW should have ended up with 4 not 3 had they used their first preferences more effectively.
In a counter-intuitive sort of way, LTW should be heartened by this, given that Starmer has a sound majority on the NEC regardless. It confirms that LTW have the potential to take one of the seats off Momentum in two years time should they get their act together on how to manage the first preferences. I suspect that LTW will run only 4 or 5 candidates of their own next time for the 9 positions. The fact that LTW have the potential to pick up more seats makes Starmer's position even more secure in the long run.
If the 90% can still be asymptomatic infectious carriers then the vaccine won't reduce R. Indeed, it may actually increase R as more infectious people will still be out and about rather than self isolating. This would be a bit of a bugger for the remaining 10%.
Hopefully this isn't the case, and the 90% are not infectious if exposed to the virus. In this case, R drops by 90% and the virus burns itself out in short order.
Is "infectious but tests consistently negative" a thing? My assumption was that if you're emitting enough of the virus to spread then it'll be detectable, therefore covered in the 10% they report as getting infected despite the vaccine.
Asymptomatic but infectious is. We simply don’t yet have that data from the Pfizer trial, as they weren’t measuring infection levels in asymptomatic individuals.
Now that the trial has been unblinded, they will almost certainly start looking for those answers. It will take a little while longer.
Comments
We all know how it will turn out, just as we know that the Moon isn't made of green cheese. But I don't blame Betfair for wanting the cover of an official certified announcement.
What exactly is still stopping Boris and co delivering the Brexit they promised us during the referendum?
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1327557487671861248
The practical problem is however the volume of trading still being conducted. I understand their hesitation. I am very pleased however that they have made it clear faithless electors will be ignored. That is just about the only development that could now muddy the waters politically, so it's a relief that for aour Betfair wagers it doesn't matter.
The horror caused by that stupid referendum never ends.
And while PMs have always had press spokesmen it is the PM who ought to be explaining his policies to Parliament and the nation. That is if he knows what they are. It does seem ironic that a government headed by a journalist has been so bloody awful at communication, beyond 3-word slogans.
We also don't really know how long minor organ impairment exists after a bad bout of flu, because it isn't routinely checked. But, even so, it's quite clear that COVID takes a much heavier toll on the body than flu. In many and varied ways, the aftereffects of this pandemic are going to echo through the coming decades. Some of these we probably haven't even foreseen yet.
--AS
How long does the Pfiser vaccine protect for though? The quantities and organisation needed to administer this every year (or every two years?) is daunting.
The measure is incidence among a vaccinated population. According to WP: Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction of disease in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. Vaccine efficacy was designed and calculated by Greenwood and Yule in 1915 for the cholera and typhoid vaccines. It is best measured using double-blind, randomized, clinical controlled trials, such that it is studied under “best case scenarios.” Vaccine effectiveness differs from vaccine efficacy in that vaccine effectiveness shows how well a vaccine works when they are always used and in a bigger population whereas vaccine efficacy shows how well a vaccine works in certain, often controlled, conditions. Vaccine efficacy studies are used to measure several possible outcomes such as disease attack rates, hospitalizations, medical visits, and costs.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-pfizer-effective-early-trial-data
And this time, we would have to sign up to the Euro...
It is a step in the right direction, nothing more, but nonetheless an improvement.
It's one thing to say that there are some people out there willing to bet on a prospect that's already lost, and that willing mugs should have their money stripped from them, and Betfair are within their rights to facilitate that. But there are those who have won a bet and are being denied their winnings. Betfair is risking the good will of those customers, and if they start to be seen as unreliable in their settlement of political markets, they risk punters taking their politics bets elsewhere. I wonder whether Betfair is even putting itself in legal jeopardy here.
Surely the sensible thing would be just to settle up and open some new market that reflects what some punters think might happen, instead of trying to squeeze more money out of a market that has evolved beyond what was ever intended.
I suppose the relevance of the distinction you're making depends on whether there's also a reduction in the spread of the virus that is sufficient to render it very rare or even eradicate it completely. That is obviously the hope.
I think we'll get a clearer picture of the likely effect of these vaccines on the spread of the virus, and also on the degree to which protection correlates with the strength of the immune response in individuals, as more results from the Phase III trials are released.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/can-history-predict-future/616993/
One for @ydoethur to weigh in on ?
Of course, if the effect of the vaccine wears off, you'd have to do some other experiments to quantify that effect and allow for it.
Samuel Longhorne Clemens.
I've just resolved now not to make any political bets with them in future.
So even if you were one of those who was vaccinnated yet were still susceptible, it would still protect you indirectly.
An annoyance is the probably correct assumption that the race director, who still isn't Charlie Whiting and whose name I still cannot remember, is likely to be risk averse to the extent of playing it a bit safe.
My source for this is this discussion, which I also ran past Mrs In Tokyo who used to make chicken vaccines:
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/jqwa2z/pfizer_inc_pfizer_and_biontech_announce_vaccine/gbpqdej/
It’s no surprise people are still angry, especially if they have no other options.
I’m very glad to hold a NZ passport.
Hopefully this isn't the case, and the 90% are not infectious if exposed to the virus. In this case, R drops by 90% and the virus burns itself out in short order.
In week 1 - its 90%
In week 2 - R has dropped significantly so its 90% of a smaller pool of people than it would have been otherwise?
And so on?
Obviously in the real world all things aren't quite equal and not everyone will get vaccinated, but it feels like it should be enough to squish it and go back to normal life - provided the protection lasts.
Take 4,000 IU/day vitamin D to boost your immunity and wait for a different vaccine with less secrecy surrounding its testing. Don't wait for the NHS establishment to catch up because you might become ill meanwhile ...
http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2020/10/covid-19-and-vitamin-d-nice-fails-us.html
https://youtu.be/JqHeVIqOERU
In England, whatever was being done before lockdown wasn't enough to bring hospitalisations down. Daily admissions numbers are still going up.
So there is more going on then simply Sturgeon holding her nerve while the surge in case numbers from university students burns itself out. There's a real difference in hospitalisation numbers.
England
Scotland
Both will face reality in January
Neither will take it well
From the Remain perspective, it is not my fault that you won. The Leave campaigns lied repeatedly about being £350m better off each week and that all of Turkey would migrate to the UK after converting the EU to a Caliphate, that we would be drowning in mountains of our own fish and freed up from huge amounts of red tape.
And every single word of it was a lie.
When this was pointed out it was "Project Fear". Those nasty Remainers were trying to scare voters.
We have spent years shouting until we are blue in the face that the lies are fantasies and Brexit is just a big unicorn hunt
So hard cheese. You won. This is your victory.
Now kindly shut up and sort out the mess you made. Or at least have the guts to own up to shambles Leave has created.
Betfair moved their CS to Romania about two years ago and it has been toilet ever since
hat-tip Nigel Farage
So I think we should be positive that even if gen 1 of the vaccine does only provide 1-2 years protection, I think we will continue to see improvements such that either the length of protection increases and / or administering it becomes simple. We already do millions and millions of flu jabs each year with no fuss.
Corbynites lost three seats (local party and BAME) in the April by-elections, and have now lost a further two in the members’ section. There has been a swing of 10% from Momentum to Labour to Win since the last full NEC elections in 2018, with Momentum securing 37% (-19) this time, Labour to Win 31% (+1) and Open Labour 9% (+5). The left vote was also down by nine percentage points compared to earlier this year. Keir Starmer can be encouraged by the overall trajectory of the party.
https://labourlist.org/2020/11/what-we-can-learn-from-labours-2020-nec-results/
Doesn`t alter the fact that most who voted to leave the EU do not want an end-point which doesn`t give us back the control that they wanted. And this is the end-point that I believe Johnson is heading towards.
"Project Fear" was project reality. In 2016 I tried and tried to convince those that intended to vote to leave, but failed.
Apparently.
Cummings is certainly unpopular, so you would think his going would have to be a plus for the government, though they might not get any credit for it due to the delay since Barnard Castle. At least with Corbyn you can say that he was given the heave-ho on the same day that he downplayed the anti-semitism report. As to the rest, that rather depends on whether what's left of the Number Ten team can pull together and lead the Cabinet with them, or whether a pattern of behaviour of infighting and jostling for the ear of the PM has become dominant.
1 Luke Akehurst Labour to Win 21,355
2 Laura Pidcock Momentum/Grassroots Voice 15,668
3 Johanna Baxter Labour to Win 9,803
4 Gemma Bolton Momentum/Grassroots Voice 9,596
5 Gurinder Singh Josan Labour to Win 4,624
6 Ann Black Open Labour 7,813
7 Yasmin Dar Momentum/Grassroots Voice 6,322
8 Nadia Jama Momentum/Grassroots Voice 5,707
9 Mish Rahman Momentum/Grassroots Voice 5,879
I don't have full details of the other candidates, but the first two LTW candidates to be eliminated had <2k votes even after transfers, whereas the one unsuccessful Momentum candidate was the last to be eliminated.
What's apparent from that is that LTW had very skewed first preferences, giving far too many to Akehurst than necessary, whereas Momentum spread theirs out more effectively. Adding the votes together, the 3 successful LTW candidates had about the same number in total as the 5 Momentum candidates, so LTW should have ended up with 4 not 3 had they used their first preferences more effectively.
In a counter-intuitive sort of way, LTW should be heartened by this, given that Starmer has a sound majority on the NEC regardless. It confirms that LTW have the potential to take one of the seats off Momentum in two years time should they get their act together on how to manage the first preferences. I suspect that LTW will run only 4 or 5 candidates of their own next time for the 9 positions. The fact that LTW have the potential to pick up more seats makes Starmer's position even more secure in the long run.
We simply don’t yet have that data from the Pfizer trial, as they weren’t measuring infection levels in asymptomatic individuals.
Now that the trial has been unblinded, they will almost certainly start looking for those answers. It will take a little while longer.
She does have a slight chipmunk look, it’s true.