Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
Government obviously know they've made the wrong call on this, but are too gutless in the face of anti lockdown pressure frombackbench libertarian nutters and the Tory press to row back, so desperately calling on us all to ignore their advice. Whitty channeling Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park - just because you can, doesn't mean you should. It's the government's job to tell us we can't, if we shouldn't!
I was at a virtual dinner party last night and was surprised that one of the participants said that there was no evidence that the vaccines stopped people from infecting others as opposed to not getting seriously ill themselves. My understanding from here was that there was such evidence albeit it was preliminary. Have there been any developments on this?
Yes, we simply don't know yet whether vaccines allow asymptomatic spread. That may be apparent in time.
No evidence is not evidence that it doesn't though, and I suspect that it does.
Tim Harford's podcast - How to Vaccinate the World is excellent on this and an absolute must-listen.
Deals with all those issues. And as you say, the trials didn't test for onward transmission (nor efficacy of single dose). So they simply don't know (so the "get vaccinated not to kill granny" is wholly spurious).
It's not wholly spurious.
There is good reason to believe vaccinations help prevent onward spread based on everything we know about spread. Just because it hasn't been tested and proven doesn't mean it's spurious.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Government could have banned foreign summer holidays and massively bolstered the seaside towns.
Would that have been an acceptable restriction of liberty?
During a Pandemic? Unless you're going for a total free for all then absolutely.
Closing the borders but keeping people's liberties here is better than having a few schmucks go on holiday, reimport the virus then closing everyone's businesses here and telling everyone to stay at home here.
Those are not the only two options.
I am deeply uncomfortable with Australia banning their citizens from leaving the country. But mandatory quarantine on the way back is fine.
Absolutely. People have gone mad.
@FrancisUrquhart I get because I'm thinking that he lives on his own, perhaps older, perhaps comfortably off, perhaps large house ( @FrancisUrquhart if this is not the case then apols but that is def a PB pro-lockdown type) so understandably wants the rest of the country to be imprisoned to protect him.
Errr no. I don't want a lockdown. I hate the lockdown. Though I can understand why it might be considered necessary.
My point was that if you're not having a total libertarian free for all (and no country in the entire world is doing then) then I would prefer to put security restrictions on the international border while keeping maximum liberalism within the country.
What part of that do you disagree with?
I was talking about preventing people going away on holiday which is what you agreed with "absolutely".
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
1417/Hardet Belize used to be one of the most sought after drafts in Crab Air due to the great opportunities for low level hooliganism and getting a scabby dick.
Just search Twitter for "@betfaircs trump" and it's wall to wall this
Yes, if you believe the stuff on Twitter, it looks like the mystery of the free money on this market wasn't mafia money-laundering or market manipulation, it was MAGA morons
A very enjoyable Twitter search, and all the more fun knowing I now have some of their money.
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
1417/Hardet Belize used to be one of the most sought after drafts in Crab Air due to the great opportunities for low level hooliganism and getting a scabby dick.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Well duh? Who would choose Weston-super-Mare, Margate, or Whitley Bay over Ibiza, Crete, or Sardinia?
You’re not going to put the genie back in the bottle.
What could change the holiday market significantly is if families weren't all forced to take their holidays in the July-August period due to school holidays. For example by different term arrangements or more flexible attendance rules. If Brits could take their long foreign holiday in spring or autumn - which personally I have long believed is optimal due to maximum weather difference, cheaper costs, and avoiding the midsummer swelter when many Europeans are themselves on holiday - then there might be a bigger market for summer breaks in the UK.
I have a few issues with this that makes me doubt if these bets/people exist.
First of all can Americans bet using Betfair, I thought they couldn't.
Secondly putting the € sign after the amount is a bit of a pointer, because we put the currency sign before the amount, except in Russia, where they do the opposite.
Of course I can imagine some Brits did keep betting on Trump well after election day, I had a few people telling me I had lost my money backing Biden.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Well there were so many more interesting variants of the virus to learn about and bring home.
The CMO was commenting that the UK has made by far the biggest contribution to the WHO genome data base on the virus. Hancock claimed that this was because we had been investing in genome technology for a decade but the role of our disproportionately high number of complete idiots cannot be underestimated.
Well there’s a fair few more British idiots turning up in my part of the world at the moment - wife and I are quarantining ourselves until the new year, waiting for them all to go back home again!
Ridiculous we are allowing people to go...they just can't miss out on their Christmas trip to Dubai...
One of few places in the world that’s open for tourists now. Hopefully it goes well with testing on arrival.
They’re mostly going to get a real shock though - mask wearing is compulsory everywhere except your own hotel room, and social distancing is taken very seriously, even at tourist attractions. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKcJtZ_yM8
Doesn't look much like a holiday to me.
I've picked Cancun for some winter sun this year. Then up to the US for a business trip.
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
Cancun is just where I'm flying into - place was full of white trash Americans partying when I was there last. I'll head down to Tulum and Playa del Carmen and over to Merida I think. Not sure I'll make it up as far as Oaxaca but you never know.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Government could have banned foreign summer holidays and massively bolstered the seaside towns.
Would that have been an acceptable restriction of liberty?
During a Pandemic? Unless you're going for a total free for all then absolutely.
Closing the borders but keeping people's liberties here is better than having a few schmucks go on holiday, reimport the virus then closing everyone's businesses here and telling everyone to stay at home here.
Those are not the only two options.
I am deeply uncomfortable with Australia banning their citizens from leaving the country. But mandatory quarantine on the way back is fine.
Absolutely. People have gone mad.
@FrancisUrquhart I get because I'm thinking that he lives on his own, perhaps older, perhaps comfortably off, perhaps large house ( @FrancisUrquhart if this is not the case then apols but that is def a PB pro-lockdown type) so understandably wants the rest of the country to be imprisoned to protect him.
Errr no. I don't want a lockdown. I hate the lockdown. Though I can understand why it might be considered necessary.
My point was that if you're not having a total libertarian free for all (and no country in the entire world is doing then) then I would prefer to put security restrictions on the international border while keeping maximum liberalism within the country.
What part of that do you disagree with?
I was talking about preventing people going away on holiday which is what you agreed with "absolutely".
Absolutely, knowing the alternative is an even greater restriction of our civil liberties.
If the choice is restricting foreign travel or restricting everything then absolutely restricting foreign travel during a pandemic is the lesser of two evils.
I was at a virtual dinner party last night and was surprised that one of the participants said that there was no evidence that the vaccines stopped people from infecting others as opposed to not getting seriously ill themselves. My understanding from here was that there was such evidence albeit it was preliminary. Have there been any developments on this?
Yes, we simply don't know yet whether vaccines allow asymptomatic spread. That may be apparent in time.
No evidence is not evidence that it doesn't though, and I suspect that it does.
Tim Harford's podcast - How to Vaccinate the World is excellent on this and an absolute must-listen.
Deals with all those issues. And as you say, the trials didn't test for onward transmission (nor efficacy of single dose). So they simply don't know (so the "get vaccinated not to kill granny" is wholly spurious).
It's not wholly spurious.
There is good reason to believe vaccinations help prevent onward spread based on everything we know about spread. Just because it hasn't been tested and proven doesn't mean it's spurious.
No one knows whether it's true. Which absolutely means that claiming it is true is spurious.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Government could have banned foreign summer holidays and massively bolstered the seaside towns.
Would that have been an acceptable restriction of liberty?
During a Pandemic? Unless you're going for a total free for all then absolutely.
Closing the borders but keeping people's liberties here is better than having a few schmucks go on holiday, reimport the virus then closing everyone's businesses here and telling everyone to stay at home here.
Those are not the only two options.
I am deeply uncomfortable with Australia banning their citizens from leaving the country. But mandatory quarantine on the way back is fine.
Absolutely. People have gone mad.
@FrancisUrquhart I get because I'm thinking that he lives on his own, perhaps older, perhaps comfortably off, perhaps large house ( @FrancisUrquhart if this is not the case then apols but that is def a PB pro-lockdown type) so understandably wants the rest of the country to be imprisoned to protect him.
Errr no. I don't want a lockdown. I hate the lockdown. Though I can understand why it might be considered necessary.
My point was that if you're not having a total libertarian free for all (and no country in the entire world is doing then) then I would prefer to put security restrictions on the international border while keeping maximum liberalism within the country.
What part of that do you disagree with?
I was talking about preventing people going away on holiday which is what you agreed with "absolutely".
Absolutely, knowing the alternative is an even greater restriction of our civil liberties.
If the choice is restricting foreign travel or restricting everything then absolutely restricting foreign travel during a pandemic is the lesser of two evils.
I have a few issues with this that makes me doubt if these bets/people exist.
First of all can Americans bet using Betfair, I thought they couldn't.
Secondly putting the € sign after the amount is a bit of a pointer, because we put the currency sign before the amount, except in Russia, where they do the opposite.
Of course I can imagine some Brits did keep betting on Trump well after election day, I had a few people telling me I had lost my money backing Biden.
As I suggested above, the first one looks like a bot, but the second is an emigrant Welshman living in Oz, looks genuine.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Well there were so many more interesting variants of the virus to learn about and bring home.
The CMO was commenting that the UK has made by far the biggest contribution to the WHO genome data base on the virus. Hancock claimed that this was because we had been investing in genome technology for a decade but the role of our disproportionately high number of complete idiots cannot be underestimated.
Well there’s a fair few more British idiots turning up in my part of the world at the moment - wife and I are quarantining ourselves until the new year, waiting for them all to go back home again!
Ridiculous we are allowing people to go...they just can't miss out on their Christmas trip to Dubai...
One of few places in the world that’s open for tourists now. Hopefully it goes well with testing on arrival.
They’re mostly going to get a real shock though - mask wearing is compulsory everywhere except your own hotel room, and social distancing is taken very seriously, even at tourist attractions. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKcJtZ_yM8
Doesn't look much like a holiday to me.
I've picked Cancun for some winter sun this year. Then up to the US for a business trip.
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
Cancun is just where I'm flying into - place was full of white trash Americans partying when I was there last. I'll head down to Tulum and Playa del Carmen and over to Merida I think. Not sure I'll make it up as far as Oaxaca but you never know.
Sounds like a great trip.
Mexico is a fantastic country to travel around as long as you're careful - I did central Mexico last year (Guadalajara-Puerto Escondido through Mexico City and Oaxaca) and I was very impressed. You never hear about that part of the world in Europe compared to Peru or SE Asia, but it was great.
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
1417/Hardet Belize used to be one of the most sought after drafts in Crab Air due to the great opportunities for low level hooliganism and getting a scabby dick.
Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
Government obviously know they've made the wrong call on this, but are too gutless in the face of anti lockdown pressure frombackbench libertarian nutters and the Tory press to row back, so desperately calling on us all to ignore their advice. Whitty channeling Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park - just because you can, doesn't mean you should. It's the government's job to tell us we can't, if we shouldn't!
No it bloody well is not!
It bloody well is when your thoughtless actions can kill somebody else.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Well there were so many more interesting variants of the virus to learn about and bring home.
The CMO was commenting that the UK has made by far the biggest contribution to the WHO genome data base on the virus. Hancock claimed that this was because we had been investing in genome technology for a decade but the role of our disproportionately high number of complete idiots cannot be underestimated.
Well there’s a fair few more British idiots turning up in my part of the world at the moment - wife and I are quarantining ourselves until the new year, waiting for them all to go back home again!
Ridiculous we are allowing people to go...they just can't miss out on their Christmas trip to Dubai...
One of few places in the world that’s open for tourists now. Hopefully it goes well with testing on arrival.
They’re mostly going to get a real shock though - mask wearing is compulsory everywhere except your own hotel room, and social distancing is taken very seriously, even at tourist attractions. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKcJtZ_yM8
Doesn't look much like a holiday to me.
I've picked Cancun for some winter sun this year. Then up to the US for a business trip.
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
Cancun is just where I'm flying into - place was full of white trash Americans partying when I was there last. I'll head down to Tulum and Playa del Carmen and over to Merida I think. Not sure I'll make it up as far as Oaxaca but you never know.
Sounds like a great trip.
Mexico is a fantastic country to travel around as long as you're careful - I did central Mexico last year (Guadalajara-Puerto Escondido through Mexico City and Oaxaca) and I was very impressed. You never hear about that part of the world in Europe compared to Peru or SE Asia, but it was great.
Yes. I never made it to Mexico but Belize, Honduras and Costa Rica are pretty amazing also and as you say not on peoples' radar.
Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
I don't get it...if they had come out yesterday and said new mutant variant, spreading, numbers too high, we need to massively scale back Christmas hall pass to 1-2 days, far better than trying to argue no change, but be careful.
Yes, German states tightened both the general distancing rules, and the Christmas "relaxation" on Sunday, I don't think there is any reduction in most people's acceptance of the rules as a result of the changes.
Hospital staff are being asked to give availability on their planned days off over christmas + new year, in case things get bad. I guess it will be OK, but in January things will probably tight - hopefully people will be responsible over christmas! There are enough beds in the hospitals, I think, but the crunch will be if there are enough staff if there is a higher peak in January.
Local emergency/ICU department staff have been told they might be vaccinated starting next week - I'm a bit sceptical as approval hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if they have any doses, but we'll see.
One of the interesting thing about cashing out on BFX is the figure on net deposits. 10 years of gambling, mostly on politics and football, and I am £200 up. Not the most effective way for me to make a living!
I only seem to have that net deposits figure for current cards - betfair seems to have removed the stats for older cards... I guess they don't want people like me knowing how much we have lost!
I was at a virtual dinner party last night and was surprised that one of the participants said that there was no evidence that the vaccines stopped people from infecting others as opposed to not getting seriously ill themselves. My understanding from here was that there was such evidence albeit it was preliminary. Have there been any developments on this?
Yes, we simply don't know yet whether vaccines allow asymptomatic spread. That may be apparent in time.
No evidence is not evidence that it doesn't though, and I suspect that it does.
Tim Harford's podcast - How to Vaccinate the World is excellent on this and an absolute must-listen.
Deals with all those issues. And as you say, the trials didn't test for onward transmission (nor efficacy of single dose). So they simply don't know (so the "get vaccinated not to kill granny" is wholly spurious).
Do you have a link?
That might be ameliorated by them vaccinating the grannies first, as planned.
I was at a virtual dinner party last night and was surprised that one of the participants said that there was no evidence that the vaccines stopped people from infecting others as opposed to not getting seriously ill themselves. My understanding from here was that there was such evidence albeit it was preliminary. Have there been any developments on this?
Yes, we simply don't know yet whether vaccines allow asymptomatic spread. That may be apparent in time.
No evidence is not evidence that it doesn't though, and I suspect that it does.
Well there is some evidence, as the AZN trial tested for asymptomatic infection as well, via swabs. There were proportionally fewer cases of asymptomatic (or symptom unreported) infection, as well as symptomatic, in the vaccinated groups as compared to control groups. And that was with a vaccine less efficacious than the mRNA vaccines.
Given none of the vaccines are 100% efficacious, they will almost certainly allow some infection to be passed on, but it seems very likely indeed that they will significantly reduce spread.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I've chasing Sporting Index this morning (yet to pay out) and they've assured me they will once their traders are in and have reviewed last night - they can't give me a time but should be today.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Government could have banned foreign summer holidays and massively bolstered the seaside towns.
Would that have been an acceptable restriction of liberty?
During a Pandemic? Unless you're going for a total free for all then absolutely.
Closing the borders but keeping people's liberties here is better than having a few schmucks go on holiday, reimport the virus then closing everyone's businesses here and telling everyone to stay at home here.
Those are not the only two options.
I am deeply uncomfortable with Australia banning their citizens from leaving the country. But mandatory quarantine on the way back is fine.
Absolutely. People have gone mad.
@FrancisUrquhart I get because I'm thinking that he lives on his own, perhaps older, perhaps comfortably off, perhaps large house ( @FrancisUrquhart if this is not the case then apols but that is def a PB pro-lockdown type) so understandably wants the rest of the country to be imprisoned to protect him.
Errr no. I don't want a lockdown. I hate the lockdown. Though I can understand why it might be considered necessary.
My point was that if you're not having a total libertarian free for all (and no country in the entire world is doing then) then I would prefer to put security restrictions on the international border while keeping maximum liberalism within the country.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Do it right & you get to be like New Zealand. No Covid & freedom of movement & association within the country.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Well there were so many more interesting variants of the virus to learn about and bring home.
The CMO was commenting that the UK has made by far the biggest contribution to the WHO genome data base on the virus. Hancock claimed that this was because we had been investing in genome technology for a decade but the role of our disproportionately high number of complete idiots cannot be underestimated.
Er, no David
It’s because the Sanger Institute is a miracle of modern scientific endeavour
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Well there were so many more interesting variants of the virus to learn about and bring home.
The CMO was commenting that the UK has made by far the biggest contribution to the WHO genome data base on the virus. Hancock claimed that this was because we had been investing in genome technology for a decade but the role of our disproportionately high number of complete idiots cannot be underestimated.
Well there’s a fair few more British idiots turning up in my part of the world at the moment - wife and I are quarantining ourselves until the new year, waiting for them all to go back home again!
Ridiculous we are allowing people to go...they just can't miss out on their Christmas trip to Dubai...
One of few places in the world that’s open for tourists now. Hopefully it goes well with testing on arrival.
They’re mostly going to get a real shock though - mask wearing is compulsory everywhere except your own hotel room, and social distancing is taken very seriously, even at tourist attractions. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKcJtZ_yM8
Doesn't look much like a holiday to me.
I've picked Cancun for some winter sun this year. Then up to the US for a business trip.
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
Cancun is just where I'm flying into - place was full of white trash Americans partying when I was there last. I'll head down to Tulum and Playa del Carmen and over to Merida I think. Not sure I'll make it up as far as Oaxaca but you never know.
That`s a good plan, stay out of Cancun. Puerto Morelos is a nice little place, just south of the monstrosity,
Used to be full of squaddies on RnR from Belize pretending they were Top Gun pilots to the local lasses.
1417/Hardet Belize used to be one of the most sought after drafts in Crab Air due to the great opportunities for low level hooliganism and getting a scabby dick.
So that’s why you call it Crab Air?
Named after some diabolical medication that was issued for lice and known as 'crab fat' or 'blue unction' that is the same colour as their uniforms which make them look like a steward on a cross channel ferry.
I was actually an RAF reject. I was in my university RAF UAS for three years then went to Aircrew Selection at Biggin Hill (in my mother's Renault 4 - glamour!) and scored (I think) 111. They had some mad 120 point scale and you needed 113 for pilot so they tried to make me into an Intelligence Officer. I walked into the Navy recruitment office the next day and said I wanted to be a pilot. They sent me back to Biggin and having done the tests two weeks before I now scored 118. You needed 117 to be a FAA pilot as there was no point in recruiting marginal candidates who wouldn't be able to handle the Harrier.
I've probably remembered all those numbers incorrectly but the relative magnitudes are basically correct.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Indeed. Britons need to start going on holiday to seaside towns again, they’ve all been hollowed out by cheap air travel over the past 50 years.
Even in the middle of a pandemic this summer, many people preferred getting on a plane to taking a break in a seaside town.
Government could have banned foreign summer holidays and massively bolstered the seaside towns.
Would that have been an acceptable restriction of liberty?
During a Pandemic? Unless you're going for a total free for all then absolutely.
Closing the borders but keeping people's liberties here is better than having a few schmucks go on holiday, reimport the virus then closing everyone's businesses here and telling everyone to stay at home here.
Those are not the only two options.
I am deeply uncomfortable with Australia banning their citizens from leaving the country. But mandatory quarantine on the way back is fine.
Absolutely. People have gone mad.
@FrancisUrquhart I get because I'm thinking that he lives on his own, perhaps older, perhaps comfortably off, perhaps large house ( @FrancisUrquhart if this is not the case then apols but that is def a PB pro-lockdown type) so understandably wants the rest of the country to be imprisoned to protect him.
Errr no. I don't want a lockdown. I hate the lockdown. Though I can understand why it might be considered necessary.
My point was that if you're not having a total libertarian free for all (and no country in the entire world is doing then) then I would prefer to put security restrictions on the international border while keeping maximum liberalism within the country.
What part of that do you disagree with?
I was talking about preventing people going away on holiday which is what you agreed with "absolutely".
Absolutely, knowing the alternative is an even greater restriction of our civil liberties.
If the choice is restricting foreign travel or restricting everything then absolutely restricting foreign travel during a pandemic is the lesser of two evils.
Libertarian Phil speaks.
Yes, Libertarian Phil wants maximum liberties possible and to avoid domestic lockdowns during a pandemic.
I said in the summer we shouldn't have summer holidays and that we could face winter lockdowns as a result.
Well genius look what's happened now. We've just had a four week lockdown, I've spent the last few months in Tier 2 or Tier 3 and it wouldn't surprise me if we have a January lockdown or Tier 2 or Tier 3 in January and February.
If all those lockdowns and tiers could have been avoided by not having foreign travel during a pandemic would I prefer that? Yes, unquestionably of course I would.
Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
Government obviously know they've made the wrong call on this, but are too gutless in the face of anti lockdown pressure frombackbench libertarian nutters and the Tory press to row back, so desperately calling on us all to ignore their advice. Whitty channeling Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park - just because you can, doesn't mean you should. It's the government's job to tell us we can't, if we shouldn't!
No it bloody well is not!
Drink driving says Hi!
This analogy only works if you know you have the virus.
Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
I don't get it...if they had come out yesterday and said new mutant variant, spreading, numbers too high, we need to massively scale back Christmas hall pass to 1-2 days, far better than trying to argue no change, but be careful.
Yes, German states tightened both the general distancing rules, and the Christmas "relaxation" on Sunday, I don't think there is any reduction in most people's acceptance of the rules as a result of the changes.
Hospital staff are being asked to give availability on their planned days off over christmas + new year, in case things get bad. I guess it will be OK, but in January things will probably tight - hopefully people will be responsible over christmas! There are enough beds in the hospitals, I think, but the crunch will be if there are enough staff if there is a higher peak in January.
Local emergency/ICU department staff have been told they might be vaccinated starting next week - I'm a bit sceptical as approval hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if they have any doses, but we'll see.
From the discussion here yesterday the EU cant have any Pfizer doses until Pfizer had filled the UK's order. That might be why the EU are being slow at approving the vaccine.
I was at a virtual dinner party last night and was surprised that one of the participants said that there was no evidence that the vaccines stopped people from infecting others as opposed to not getting seriously ill themselves. My understanding from here was that there was such evidence albeit it was preliminary. Have there been any developments on this?
Yes, we simply don't know yet whether vaccines allow asymptomatic spread. That may be apparent in time.
No evidence is not evidence that it doesn't though, and I suspect that it does.
Tim Harford's podcast - How to Vaccinate the World is excellent on this and an absolute must-listen.
Deals with all those issues. And as you say, the trials didn't test for onward transmission (nor efficacy of single dose). So they simply don't know (so the "get vaccinated not to kill granny" is wholly spurious).
Agreed. "How to Vaccinate the World" and "More or Less" are my two go-to podcasts at the moment.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
At the risk of endlessly going over old issues (I mean we'd never do that on PB would we...) their initial rules were on projected, and were clearly too ambiguous. I would hope that in future they would reflect on this, and have more determined rules.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I've chasing Sporting Index this morning (yet to pay out) and they've assured me they will once their traders are in and have reviewed last night - they can't give me a time but should be today.
Not sure what Sporting's rules were but no doubt different to Betfair and they did settle the obvious markets long ago.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I've chasing Sporting Index this morning (yet to pay out) and they've assured me they will once their traders are in and have reviewed last night - they can't give me a time but should be today.
Not sure what Sporting's rules were but no doubt different to Betfair and they did settle the obvious markets long ago.
It's the ECV buy spreads on Biden that are still open.
Can you send your charity details to me too please, Peter?
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
At the risk of endlessly going over old issues (I mean we'd never do that on PB would we...) their initial rules were on projected, and were clearly too ambiguous. I would hope that in future they would reflect on this, and have more determined rules.
I agree - and I think their judgment in not settling earlier was deeply questionable, but it was at least marginally defensible.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I've chasing Sporting Index this morning (yet to pay out) and they've assured me they will once their traders are in and have reviewed last night - they can't give me a time but should be today.
Not sure what Sporting's rules were but no doubt different to Betfair and they did settle the obvious markets long ago.
It's the ECV buy spreads on Biden that are still open.
Can you send your charity details to me too please, Peter?
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I've chasing Sporting Index this morning (yet to pay out) and they've assured me they will once their traders are in and have reviewed last night - they can't give me a time but should be today.
Not sure what Sporting's rules were but no doubt different to Betfair and they did settle the obvious markets long ago.
It's the ECV buy spreads on Biden that are still open.
Can you send your charity details to me too please, Peter?
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I've chasing Sporting Index this morning (yet to pay out) and they've assured me they will once their traders are in and have reviewed last night - they can't give me a time but should be today.
Not sure what Sporting's rules were but no doubt different to Betfair and they did settle the obvious markets long ago.
It's the ECV buy spreads on Biden that are still open.
Can you send your charity details to me too please, Peter?
Sorry, I was joking! The charity I had in mind was my Christmas Fund.
Apologies. Mild joking doesn't always come across in print.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
Good news on procurement from local businesses. Councils will be able (for small contracts) to restrict tendering by geography. This is a welcome change from the short-sighted insistence on lowest price, which is fine if it saves the council tax payers a bob or two but less fine if it leads to more local unemployment and fewer council tax payers. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/15/councils-hospitals-can-reserve-smaller-contracts-local-firms/
Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
I don't get it...if they had come out yesterday and said new mutant variant, spreading, numbers too high, we need to massively scale back Christmas hall pass to 1-2 days, far better than trying to argue no change, but be careful.
Yes, German states tightened both the general distancing rules, and the Christmas "relaxation" on Sunday, I don't think there is any reduction in most people's acceptance of the rules as a result of the changes.
Hospital staff are being asked to give availability on their planned days off over christmas + new year, in case things get bad. I guess it will be OK, but in January things will probably tight - hopefully people will be responsible over christmas! There are enough beds in the hospitals, I think, but the crunch will be if there are enough staff if there is a higher peak in January.
Local emergency/ICU department staff have been told they might be vaccinated starting next week - I'm a bit sceptical as approval hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if they have any doses, but we'll see.
Have all of them tightened?
I seem to recall Frau Merkel apologising that she could not make it happen a few days ago.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
I had a smidgen more, topped up after the TX SCOTUS decision. Their final tweet on the markets was beyond abysmal though. Really needs looking at.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
At the risk of endlessly going over old issues (I mean we'd never do that on PB would we...) their initial rules were on projected, and were clearly too ambiguous. I would hope that in future they would reflect on this, and have more determined rules.
I agree - and I think their judgment in not settling earlier was deeply questionable, but it was at least marginally defensible.
To be entirely fair I have to say I think their original rules were fine.
If you bet on politics and know the US Political scene and its practices the phrase 'projected electoral votes' is perfectly clear. Most punters understood it correctly and so did Betfair because they paid out on the correct basis in many instances.
If there were any genuine doubt at any point they should have started by explaining exactly what their traders had in mind when the rules were framed. This would have closed off all doubt. What they actually did was change the rules, and confuse the matter with some dreadfully ill-worded PR statements and replies to complaints.
They are children, and shouldn't be permitted to play grown-up games.
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
At the risk of endlessly going over old issues (I mean we'd never do that on PB would we...) their initial rules were on projected, and were clearly too ambiguous. I would hope that in future they would reflect on this, and have more determined rules.
I agree - and I think their judgment in not settling earlier was deeply questionable, but it was at least marginally defensible.
To be entirely fair I have to say I think their original rules were fine.
If you bet on politics and know the US Political scene and its practices the phrase 'projected electoral votes' is perfectly clear. Most punters understood it correctly and so did Betfair because they paid out on the correct basis in many instances.
If there were any genuine doubt at any point they should have started by explaining exactly what their traders had in mind when the rules were framed. This would have closed off all doubt. What they actually did was change the rules, and confuse the matter with some dreadfully ill-worded PR statements and replies to complaints.
They are children, and shouldn't be permitted to play grown-up games.
The rules specified in advance that if there is doubt they would wait for it to be official. What do you take that to mean if not what happened this year? We had a projection but it was doubted, challenged, unofficial and before the courts.
In the nightmare scenario that Trump had won via SCOTUS then I don't see how Betfair could have avoided paying out to Trump punters since he would have been the official projected Electoral College votes winner yesterday.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
Bookies pay you with money gained from other people betting on losing outcomes
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
I had a smidgen more, topped up after the TX SCOTUS decision. Their final tweet on the markets was beyond abysmal though. Really needs looking at.
Most of that £10k was of course stake. I turned a small loss into a small profit by betting at big odds on - on a race that was over. I considered putting more on. There was no doubt in my mind that Biden would be installed as President in due course. The element of doubt was whether Betfair would change the rules again, invent their own settlement conditions and do something unspeakably absurd, like defer payment until DT conceded.
I couldn't take that risk so stopped when the betting bank was maxed out. Very inconvenient though. Had to forgo other investments - and I'm behind with the Christmas shopping!
Mr. kle4, plenty of things worse than cliché. Subverting expectations for the sake of it, for example.
*sighs at the memory of Game of Thrones' final season*
It was well set up but rushed. I agree about plenty worse than cliche, but 'subverting for the sake of it' is a giant red flag of a complaint in my eyes as it's what many will say if they dont like something.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
Bookies pay you with money gained from other people betting on losing outcomes
I have a few issues with this that makes me doubt if these bets/people exist.
First of all can Americans bet using Betfair, I thought they couldn't.
Secondly putting the € sign after the amount is a bit of a pointer, because we put the currency sign before the amount, except in Russia, where they do the opposite.
Of course I can imagine some Brits did keep betting on Trump well after election day, I had a few people telling me I had lost my money backing Biden.
The currency symbol on the wrong side of the number is occasionally seen on pb.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
You are not a serious punter, Philip, and on the evidence of that post I'd say it's just as well.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
Not really - the only reason people were not piling in for Biden was a fear of Betfair's behaviour, not because they thought Biden had not already won.
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
All of life is a gamble, Alistair, '...and mostly the odds are 5/4 against.' [Damon Runyon.]
I have a few issues with this that makes me doubt if these bets/people exist.
First of all can Americans bet using Betfair, I thought they couldn't.
Secondly putting the € sign after the amount is a bit of a pointer, because we put the currency sign before the amount, except in Russia, where they do the opposite.
Of course I can imagine some Brits did keep betting on Trump well after election day, I had a few people telling me I had lost my money backing Biden.
The currency symbol on the wrong side of the number is occasionally seen on pb.
I don't have a problem with when Betfair ultimately chose to pay out. I can see why they waited until votes were certified and those certifications were clear of challenge. Whilst I was derisive of Trump's "legal" challenges (they barely merit the word), I can see why a betting company works on the basis a challenge by the US President might succeed.
My concern, and where confidence has been hit, is that they were never clear on the position. Even yesterday, they were tweeting advice suggesting they'd wait until 6th January, or maybe even 20th January.
They had weeks to provide clarity and failed.To be honest, it would've been pretty easy and obvious to say a day or two after the election, "Trump is intent on challenging the results in various states. We'll pay out when he (or Biden) concedes or when the Electoral College votes, whichever is earlier". For a market worth millions, it wasn't that tricky.
I have a few issues with this that makes me doubt if these bets/people exist.
First of all can Americans bet using Betfair, I thought they couldn't.
Secondly putting the € sign after the amount is a bit of a pointer, because we put the currency sign before the amount, except in Russia, where they do the opposite.
Of course I can imagine some Brits did keep betting on Trump well after election day, I had a few people telling me I had lost my money backing Biden.
The currency symbol on the wrong side of the number is occasionally seen on pb.
They do it in Germany too, though not consistently.
Good news that Betfair have finally (!) settled POTUS. They should have done so as soon as sufficient states were called to get Biden over 270. Which was what seems like a lifetime ago.
And now a plea to the media. Please PLEASE stop reporting Donald Trump's continuing rejection of democracy as him "not giving up".
This gives the wrong vibe entirely. Makes him sound like some inspirational plucky underdog refusing to buckle under the pressure and, despite the odds being stacked against him, bravely battling on for the win that could yet be his.
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
If you are quite happy to use the adjective stupid to describe your fellow human beings, I'd argue you have a few more moral issues than whether you bet or not.
Comments
There is good reason to believe vaccinations help prevent onward spread based on everything we know about spread. Just because it hasn't been tested and proven doesn't mean it's spurious.
First of all can Americans bet using Betfair, I thought they couldn't.
Secondly putting the € sign after the amount is a bit of a pointer, because we put the currency sign before the amount, except in Russia, where they do the opposite.
Of course I can imagine some Brits did keep betting on Trump well after election day, I had a few people telling me I had lost my money backing Biden.
If the choice is restricting foreign travel or restricting everything then absolutely restricting foreign travel during a pandemic is the lesser of two evils.
Will wear them to the next PB meet up.
https://bit.ly/3nlJtWG
Hospital staff are being asked to give availability on their planned days off over christmas + new year, in case things get bad. I guess it will be OK, but in January things will probably tight - hopefully people will be responsible over christmas! There are enough beds in the hospitals, I think, but the crunch will be if there are enough staff if there is a higher peak in January.
Local emergency/ICU department staff have been told they might be vaccinated starting next week - I'm a bit sceptical as approval hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if they have any doses, but we'll see.
That might be ameliorated by them vaccinating the grannies first, as planned.
And that was with a vaccine less efficacious than the mRNA vaccines.
Given none of the vaccines are 100% efficacious, they will almost certainly allow some infection to be passed on, but it seems very likely indeed that they will significantly reduce spread.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
I was actually an RAF reject. I was in my university RAF UAS for three years then went to Aircrew Selection at Biggin Hill (in my mother's Renault 4 - glamour!) and scored (I think) 111. They had some mad 120 point scale and you needed 113 for pilot so they tried to make me into an Intelligence Officer. I walked into the Navy recruitment office the next day and said I wanted to be a pilot. They sent me back to Biggin and having done the tests two weeks before I now scored 118. You needed 117 to be a FAA pilot as there was no point in recruiting marginal candidates who wouldn't be able to handle the Harrier.
I've probably remembered all those numbers incorrectly but the relative magnitudes are basically correct.
I said in the summer we shouldn't have summer holidays and that we could face winter lockdowns as a result.
Well genius look what's happened now. We've just had a four week lockdown, I've spent the last few months in Tier 2 or Tier 3 and it wouldn't surprise me if we have a January lockdown or Tier 2 or Tier 3 in January and February.
If all those lockdowns and tiers could have been avoided by not having foreign travel during a pandemic would I prefer that? Yes, unquestionably of course I would.
Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
Can you send your charity details to me too please, Peter?
Betfair failed on each count.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-sneakers-claimed-to-resemble-adolf-hitler/
Apologies. Mild joking doesn't always come across in print.
*sighs at the memory of Game of Thrones' final season*
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/15/councils-hospitals-can-reserve-smaller-contracts-local-firms/
I seem to recall Frau Merkel apologising that she could not make it happen a few days ago.
If you bet on politics and know the US Political scene and its practices the phrase 'projected electoral votes' is perfectly clear. Most punters understood it correctly and so did Betfair because they paid out on the correct basis in many instances.
If there were any genuine doubt at any point they should have started by explaining exactly what their traders had in mind when the rules were framed. This would have closed off all doubt. What they actually did was change the rules, and confuse the matter with some dreadfully ill-worded PR statements and replies to complaints.
They are children, and shouldn't be permitted to play grown-up games.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
In the nightmare scenario that Trump had won via SCOTUS then I don't see how Betfair could have avoided paying out to Trump punters since he would have been the official projected Electoral College votes winner yesterday.
How is that different from the exchanges?
I couldn't take that risk so stopped when the betting bank was maxed out. Very inconvenient though. Had to forgo other investments - and I'm behind with the Christmas shopping!
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1338775352160755713?s=19
Now I'm ready for the various wine merchants' January sales.
There is clearly a significant percentage whose definition of 'handled it well' equates to 'handled it differently to England'.
My concern, and where confidence has been hit, is that they were never clear on the position. Even yesterday, they were tweeting advice suggesting they'd wait until 6th January, or maybe even 20th January.
They had weeks to provide clarity and failed.To be honest, it would've been pretty easy and obvious to say a day or two after the election, "Trump is intent on challenging the results in various states. We'll pay out when he (or Biden) concedes or when the Electoral College votes, whichever is earlier". For a market worth millions, it wasn't that tricky.
And now a plea to the media. Please PLEASE stop reporting Donald Trump's continuing rejection of democracy as him "not giving up".
This gives the wrong vibe entirely. Makes him sound like some inspirational plucky underdog refusing to buckle under the pressure and, despite the odds being stacked against him, bravely battling on for the win that could yet be his.