Categories
WH2020 passes another milestone making Trump’s effort to discredit the results even more challenging
WH2020 passes another milestone making Trump’s effort to discredit the results even more challenging – Safe Harbour Day – politicalbetting.com
Tuesday saw another important milestone for Donald Trump as he desperately tries to deny the results of the presidential election and somehow cling onto power. For it was what is known as “Safe Harbour Day” which last became an issue at WH2000 when Bush squeezed victory over Gore following the very tight race in Florida.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/i/status/1336331818258235398
Which isn’t bad actually. The sort of thing BIG G would like.
Biden 1.05
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.02
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.04
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.07
Biden ECV 300-329 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.06
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.07
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.05
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.12
Trump exit date 2021 1.1
What a grafter!
What a grafter!
This suggests that the levelling off in case numbers in Germany reflects the fact they've hit capacity in terms of testing and that actually case numbers continued to rise. One to keep an eye one.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9030889/Experts-plead-Angela-Merkel-Germany-tightened-lockdown-January-10.html
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns
One can only imagine the board are all rabid remoaners determined for there to be Brexit chaos.
It will be a face-saving formula for them. They can point to the college vote as if it were decisive for betting purposes and when they have settled the public fuss will die down. Longer term, they will have to deal with the damage to their reputation and the very strong possibility of inquiries by the Gambling Commission, who will no doubt be as concerned by the moneylaundering aspects of the matter as the protracted delay in settling markets.
I doubt we will see much public evidence of this, especially if it transpires that Betfair's behaviour is a demonstration of incompetence rather than mischief, which I think is likely to be the case. If the GC manage to make them smarten up their act however that will be a decent result.
Won't bother me either way though. Once settled, I'll be closing my account for good. I don't need them, and I can't be having a market maker that moves the goalposts.
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
Unless the Tories improve things those seats will revert to form (witness Redcar in 2010- Lib Dem and 2015 - back to Safe Labour).
So whether Boris wants to continue the triple lock or not if the party wants to be sure of the next election he needs to give the Red Wall the things that have been promised to them.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.
My friend's girlfriend (now his wife) had a property on the seafront near the tower. Beautiful views over to Scotland and The Maidens, but if a big sea built up in bad weather, the water came up to your doorstep. They now live well inland (closer to B&Q)
Trump steams in to 20s.
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.
Say they'd gambled on a one dose trial and it came back at 40% effective. Not good enough, but now a second trial is needed to check whether two doses is better and we're well into next year before we know.
You could of course throw more money at the problem (try and recruit double the people and trial one and two doses simultaneously). But even under that scenario (if possible in terms of production. recruitment etc) you could instead have done a double size trial on two dose vaccine and got the results in around half the time.
There are also other factors - a two dose AZN vaccine might still be cheaper (it's under half the price) and maybe quicker to produce two doses than a notional one dose version of the Pfizer vaccine
In short, it would have been a big gamble and likely have delayed vaccine approval and roll out. Of course, if it turns out that one dose would give 70% then it would all have been fine, but we don't know that.
Is the remit to provide the best protection against the virus for the individual vaccinated, OR to provide the best protection for society in terms of numbers of people gettting sick/numbers dying/how soon distancing measures can be eased?
Did you see my post this morning PtP (at 07:47)? I saw yours yesterday on same topic.
https://www.techcentral.ie/how-to-turn-off-outlooks-horrible-top-results-feature/
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
As I said, governments may ask for PIII trials to be run on the basis of hitting 60-70% efficacy on a single dose but until those trials are complete there is no way the regulator can approve a single dose vaccine because the efficacy is unknown and immunity levels can't easily be modelled.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
Money has been hosed around. When does the bill come in? Who pays?
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336429227072217091?s=20
You are right about their bullshit replies. They made matters less certain, not more. Instead of referring us to a definite date or circumstances for settlement, they alluded airily to a number of possible factors, including the unlikely event of a concession from Trum, without in any way committing themselves.
So you are right to suspect that they may not settle on December but on some indefinite future date, according to their whim. They seem to think they have a right to do this. If they do, the GC will almost certainly be saying 'Hi'.
For the moment, nothing we can do for the time being but wait patiently.
edit: I did notice the typo but it always nice to take the p out of Trump.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.
"Brexit: Northern Ireland firms will have to fill out forms to send goods to Britain
Boris Johnson makes climbdown a year after saying companies could throw paperwork in the bin"
I thought they'd asked them to be nulled and the legislatures of those slates to put in new [Trump] electors in their place, which would be enough.
If the SCOTUS doesn't dismiss this with prejudice 9-0 then SCOTUS is seriously corrupted.
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
If you fail to get 270+ it goes to a vote by state to decide the winner.
If it happens I will laugh all the way to an anal prolapse.
They will have looked at the entrails of the earlier trials, picked the best option and run hard. You can backfill later on alternative dosing regimes if necessary.
Perhaps some may ask what the US Supreme Court is for, if not to resolve disputes between individual states along the lines of the constitution?