Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it is now. It's not a problem.
BREAKING: Netherlands reports 10,345 new coronavirus cases, an increase of 803% from last week
Holy fuck
That's the same Delta curve as India. Almost vertical. A rocket shooting up, not a plane taking off
At this rate - tripling every three days - Holland will have 250,000 cases a day in ten days, and the entire nation will have Delta ten days after that
We're going to have much the same from a higher starting point. Soonish everyone in the UK will either be hiding or will have CV. An astonishing risk that the government is running.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
BREAKING: Netherlands reports 10,345 new coronavirus cases, an increase of 803% from last week
Holy fuck
That's the same Delta curve as India. Almost vertical. A rocket shooting up, not a plane taking off
At this rate - tripling every three days - Holland will have 250,000 cases a day in ten days, and the entire nation will have Delta ten days after that
We're going to have much the same from a higher starting point. Soonish everyone in the UK will either be hiding or will have CV. An astonishing risk that the government is running.
No we’re not because we have had delta longer than anyone bar India and that take off hasn’t happened. Because vaccination.
"Disinformation like the media’s early reporting of people falling down and dying on the streets in China? Or perhaps dismissing the increasingly likely lab leak hypothesis as an “alt-right conspiracy theory”? This list is endless. And ongoing."
Remember all the early images we saw of people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan and elsewhere
A couple of similar images emerged, early on - in Italy and Iran - but there has been nothing since, despite 10m dead, and a plague sweeping the world
So: either those images were real but the virus has somehow changed, OR they were faked for a reason
Who benefited from this kind of fake news? China?
Or they were real but with another cause than (or together with) a SARSCoV2 infection.
(Too late to edit, but): I think the ones in China and Iran were genuine, but if the ones in China were fake then I doubt any foreign power was responsible for faking them. In Iran too, if a foreign power had come in and faked them, we'd probably have heard an allegation to that effect from the government by now.
What surprises me is that there hasn't been any serious investigation of all this, from anyone
It is clear that some people were gaming the social media messages about Covid from the get-go, not least the Chinese disguising a possible lab origin, and hyping the bat-eaters in the market. That video of the woman eating the bat springs to mind
10 million have died and the plague still roils the world, and yet there is a distinct absence of mad conspiracy theories, if you ask me, and a near-total lack of scrutiny, of all this, by western governments. Why? Are we mentally and politically paralysed by the bug?
The bat stew video was from Thailand wasn't it?
And misleading videos on Social Media? Who would have though that?🤔
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
That’s not the point. See my point about doubles. I may be in the minority, but I just think it’s currently wrong.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
BREAKING: Netherlands reports 10,345 new coronavirus cases, an increase of 803% from last week
Holy fuck
That's the same Delta curve as India. Almost vertical. A rocket shooting up, not a plane taking off
At this rate - tripling every three days - Holland will have 250,000 cases a day in ten days, and the entire nation will have Delta ten days after that
"Disinformation like the media’s early reporting of people falling down and dying on the streets in China? Or perhaps dismissing the increasingly likely lab leak hypothesis as an “alt-right conspiracy theory”? This list is endless. And ongoing."
Remember all the early images we saw of people dropping dead in the streets of Wuhan and elsewhere
A couple of similar images emerged, early on - in Italy and Iran - but there has been nothing since, despite 10m dead, and a plague sweeping the world
So: either those images were real but the virus has somehow changed, OR they were faked for a reason
Who benefited from this kind of fake news? China?
Or they were real but with another cause than (or together with) a SARSCoV2 infection.
(Too late to edit, but): I think the ones in China and Iran were genuine, but if the ones in China were fake then I doubt any foreign power was responsible for faking them. In Iran too, if a foreign power had come in and faked them, we'd probably have heard an allegation to that effect from the government by now.
What surprises me is that there hasn't been any serious investigation of all this, from anyone
It is clear that some people were gaming the social media messages about Covid from the get-go, not least the Chinese disguising a possible lab origin, and hyping the bat-eaters in the market. That video of the woman eating the bat springs to mind
10 million have died and the plague still roils the world, and yet there is a distinct absence of mad conspiracy theories, if you ask me, and a near-total lack of scrutiny, of all this, by western governments. Why? Are we mentally and politically paralysed by the bug?
The bat stew video was from Thailand wasn't it?
And misleading videos on Social Media? Who would have though that?🤔
The bat vids are of Chinese tourists in Palau, Indonesia, probably
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Yes, but there's less prestige if there is less effort needed to win. It just seems a no brainer to me - they have the ability to do it, apparently some of them want to do it, they deserve the prestige of equal footing, not just financial equivalence.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Yes, but there's less prestige if there is less effort needed to win. It just seems a no brainer to me - they have the ability to do it, apparently some of them want to do it, they deserve the prestige of equal footing, not just financial equivalence.
Would extending the length of football matches them more prestigious? Make it a game of three halves perhaps?
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
14 day lag
What were the U.K. cases 14 days ago? (Just looked, about 20,000 leading to 35 deaths reported today). I think your deaths ratio is off for the current situation.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
There is an argument that survival at the top requires 24/7 commitment in terms of lifestyle, training and practice, of which the occasional competitive match only represents a tiny percentage.
RTÉ News @rtenews Those aged under 18 will be able to go inside bars and restaurants if they are accompanied by a vaccinated person, under a plan for reopening indoor hospitality that is due to go to Cabinet on Tuesday
On female sport, been watching the women's cricket. The ball is a little smaller and lighter and the ground is slightly smaller. Scores are, generally speaking, lower than in equivalent mens games, the bowling is slower, and the ball doesn't seem to be hit as far. The fielding often hasn't been as good as in the mens game, but, to be fair, yesterday's Indian fielding was as good overall as any I've seen.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Do you know all that is true? What difference is it if the men don’t want them to play best of 5? Scheduling is fine, there will be a middle Sunday next year, and two courts with lights. I personally think it is unfair, and dare I say it reverse sexism.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak admissions at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
14 day lag
What were the U.K. cases 14 days ago? (Just looked, about 20,000 leading to 35 deaths reported today). I think your deaths ratio is off for the current situation.
14,066 was the 7 day moving average 14 days ago, driving admissions today. It is now 30,504. My simple model is showing it going up to 55,000, so admissions will quadruple to 2,050 with a 14 day lag.
EDIT: Many apologies - I'm predicting admissions not deaths
RTÉ News @rtenews Those aged under 18 will be able to go inside bars and restaurants if they are accompanied by a vaccinated person, under a plan for reopening indoor hospitality that is due to go to Cabinet on Tuesday
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Yes, but there's less prestige if there is less effort needed to win. It just seems a no brainer to me - they have the ability to do it, apparently some of them want to do it, they deserve the prestige of equal footing, not just financial equivalence.
Would extending the length of football matches them more prestigious? Make it a game of three halves perhaps?
Perhaps automatic Extra Time.
Not that that improves the game. AET is usually not great football. Spain/Croatia possibly excepted.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
Prize money reflects the prestige of the tournament, not the effort of the players. They don't get overtime for a long tie-break.
Yes, but there's less prestige if there is less effort needed to win. It just seems a no brainer to me - they have the ability to do it, apparently some of them want to do it, they deserve the prestige of equal footing, not just financial equivalence.
Would extending the length of football matches them more prestigious? Make it a game of three halves perhaps?
It would if the men played three halves and the women only played two. One would be seen as the more testing challenge.
Seriously, I don't understand the reluctance on this front at all - despite the comments about quality from some here women's tennis is one of those where the attention and money rightly recognises that it is genuinely elite in its own right, with big names and big prizes. With no physical impediment to making the rules the same for men and women, why the heck not? It doesn't play second fiddle to the men's game, nor should it, so why not let both genders compete on the same basis? Why give succour to arguments the tournaments are not equivalent because the rules are not the same?
Make it equal in all things, as it should be.
We could reduce the men to three sets, that which they play most of the year, if you'd prefer.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
14 day lag
What were the U.K. cases 14 days ago? (Just looked, about 20,000 leading to 35 deaths reported today). I think your deaths ratio is off for the current situation.
14,066 was the 7 day moving average 14 days ago, driving deaths today. It is now 30,504. My simple model is showing it going up to 55,000, so deaths will quadruple to 2,050 with a 14 day lag.
Quadruple 35 is 140... have you done 35 to the power 4?
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak admissions at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
14 day lag
What were the U.K. cases 14 days ago? (Just looked, about 20,000 leading to 35 deaths reported today). I think your deaths ratio is off for the current situation.
14,066 was the 7 day moving average 14 days ago, driving deaths today. It is now 30,504. My simple model is showing it going up to 55,000, so admissions will quadruple to 2,050 with a 14 day lag.
EDIT: Many apologies - I'm predicting admissions not deaths
BREAKING: Netherlands reports 10,345 new coronavirus cases, an increase of 803% from last week
Holy fuck
That's the same Delta curve as India. Almost vertical. A rocket shooting up, not a plane taking off
At this rate - tripling every three days - Holland will have 250,000 cases a day in ten days, and the entire nation will have Delta ten days after that
We're going to have much the same from a higher starting point. Soonish everyone in the UK will either be hiding or will have CV. An astonishing risk that the government is running.
No we’re not because we have had delta longer than anyone bar India and that take off hasn’t happened. Because vaccination.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak admissions at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
14 day lag
What were the U.K. cases 14 days ago? (Just looked, about 20,000 leading to 35 deaths reported today). I think your deaths ratio is off for the current situation.
14,066 was the 7 day moving average 14 days ago, driving admissions today. It is now 30,504. My simple model is showing it going up to 55,000, so admissions will quadruple to 2,050 with a 14 day lag.
EDIT: Many apologies - I'm predicting admissions not deaths
That makes a whole lot more sense! And is a fair prediction.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
RTÉ News @rtenews Those aged under 18 will be able to go inside bars and restaurants if they are accompanied by a vaccinated person, under a plan for reopening indoor hospitality that is due to go to Cabinet on Tuesday
In Ireland? Or is that U.K.?
Ireland. Apparently there will also be a time limit of 1 hour and 45mins.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
14 day lag
What were the U.K. cases 14 days ago? (Just looked, about 20,000 leading to 35 deaths reported today). I think your deaths ratio is off for the current situation.
14,066 was the 7 day moving average 14 days ago, driving deaths today. It is now 30,504. My simple model is showing it going up to 55,000, so deaths will quadruple to 2,050 with a 14 day lag.
Quadruple 35 is 140... have you done 35 to the power 4?
Apologies - I'm predicting admissions not deaths.
Deaths are only about 8% of admissions so 2,050 admissions is about 160 daily deaths.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
On female sport, been watching the women's cricket. The ball is a little smaller and lighter and the ground is slightly smaller. Scores are, generally speaking, lower than in equivalent mens games, the bowling is slower, and the ball doesn't seem to be hit as far. The fielding often hasn't been as good as in the mens game, but, to be fair, yesterday's Indian fielding was as good overall as any I've seen.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
IIRC the SNP's position on WWII was somewhat 'questionable'.
You may be thinking of WW1 (which was probably more to do with conscientious objection/socialism?). WW2 saw very little of that sort of thing. Arthur Donaldson is the best known example, delated on false information (he was very quickly released). But compare, however, Unionists suich as Archibald Ramsay MP and Sempill.
On female sport, been watching the women's cricket. The ball is a little smaller and lighter and the ground is slightly smaller. Scores are, generally speaking, lower than in equivalent mens games, the bowling is slower, and the ball doesn't seem to be hit as far. The fielding often hasn't been as good as in the mens game, but, to be fair, yesterday's Indian fielding was as good overall as any I've seen.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
On female sport, been watching the women's cricket. The ball is a little smaller and lighter and the ground is slightly smaller. Scores are, generally speaking, lower than in equivalent mens games, the bowling is slower, and the ball doesn't seem to be hit as far. The fielding often hasn't been as good as in the mens game, but, to be fair, yesterday's Indian fielding was as good overall as any I've seen.
I thought their games were at Bristol?
On TV. There's a 20/20 at Chelmsford before long, though.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
More than men's, in fact.
No, Rob, equal, as I explained.
The effort required is different. I agree that the prize money should be the same, but so should the rules of the game.
The women don't want to play best of 5. The men don't want the women to play best of 5. The fans don't want to see women's best of 5. The schedule doesn't want to expand to accommodate women's best of 5.
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Are these your opinions, or facts? I've never looked into whether players (of either gender) want 3 or 5 sets to be honest.
How can the growth rate be driven by Scotland given the relative sizes of the constituent nations?
Because despite this being a global pandemic effects happen locally.
Scotland went from 164 cases on the 1st of May to 3333 and the 30th of June peak ni Scotland. The North West went from 258 to 4430 on the 30th The North East 71 to 2532
The East Midlands meanwhile has gone from 157 to 1476, ditto London, South East and East of England.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
I think you mean admissions, not deaths.
Edit: I see your correction above.
Yes - Apologies. I can only blame the two pints of Pimms I have just consumed at the Barnes Summer Festival and the rush to analyse the latest 4pm numbers. Sorry.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
How can the growth rate be driven by Scotland given the relative sizes of the constituent nations?
Because despite this being a global pandemic effects happen locally.
Scotland went from 164 cases on the 1st of May to 3333 and the 30th of June peak ni Scotland. The North West went from 258 to 4430 on the 30th The North East 71 to 2532
The East Midlands meanwhile has gone from 157 to 1476, ditto London, South East and East of England.
I get that, but a change of under a thousand cases isn't actually that significant when the total is 30,000+
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
d2C/dT2 (2nd differential of growth of cases) is now -0.01. Putting that in my simple model gives: Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August. For what it's worth ... (Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
How do you get to that many deaths with cases only marginally more than now?
14 day lag
What were the U.K. cases 14 days ago? (Just looked, about 20,000 leading to 35 deaths reported today). I think your deaths ratio is off for the current situation.
14,066 was the 7 day moving average 14 days ago, driving deaths today. It is now 30,504. My simple model is showing it going up to 55,000, so deaths will quadruple to 2,050 with a 14 day lag.
Quadruple 35 is 140... have you done 35 to the power 4?
Apologies - I'm predicting admissions not deaths.
Deaths are only about 8% of admissions so 2,050 admissions is about 160 daily deaths.
Yes, that sounds more plausible.
Hopefully we won't have to use our surge plan again, discontinuing operating and redeployment theatre staff and junior doctors.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
Actual gender equality in sport would probably involve abolishing the separate men's and women's competition and just having one which is open to all...
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
Actual gender equality in sport would probably involve abolishing the separate men's and women's competition and just having one which is open to all...
Would solve all trans issues with one swoop. Not popular I suspect.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
Actual gender equality in sport would probably involve abolishing the separate men's and women's competition and just having one which is open to all...
Would solve all trans issues with one swoop. Not popular I suspect.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
Actual gender equality in sport would probably involve abolishing the separate men's and women's competition and just having one which is open to all...
Would solve all trans issues with one swoop. Not popular I suspect.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
Actual gender equality in sport would probably involve abolishing the separate men's and women's competition and just having one which is open to all...
Would solve all trans issues with one swoop. Not popular I suspect.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
IIRC the SNP's position on WWII was somewhat 'questionable'.
To be fair, so was much of the Conservative Party, with Lord Halifax for example, and the former Edward VIII.
As an aside. If Edward VIII had stayed on in 1936 would we now be a Republic?
Actually, Halifax was an appeaser from the position of hating the Nazis*. And Stalinism. He believed that another general war would kill millions and hand Europe to one dictator or the other. He was prepared to do just about anything to stop that.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
De Valera agreed with you. But the IRA thought of their enemy’s enemy as a friend. And so did the Nazis.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
IIRC the SNP's position on WWII was somewhat 'questionable'.
To be fair, so was much of the Conservative Party, with Lord Halifax for example, and the former Edward VIII.
As an aside. If Edward VIII had stayed on in 1936 would we now be a Republic?
Actually, Halifax was an appeaser from the position of hating the Nazis*. And Stalinism. He believed that another general war would kill millions and hand Europe to one dictator or the other. He was prepared to do just about anything to stop that.
*Read his diaries on this.
Yes, very different from the SNP nutjobs who actively wanted the Nazis to win.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
But its rewarding less work, so its only half a statement. I only watch tennis occasionally but I cannot say I notice that much of a difference, and the top ones surely have the talent and physicality for best of 5, I don't see what the big deal is that is holding off from it.
Fan appetite certainly isnt a reason, under that argument there wouldn't be nearly as much reporting on women's football and cricket as there is (albeit it isn't that much), and women's tennis is much more high profile than those. There's appetite for the best women to prove themselves over best of 5, people like long matches featuring the best.
There isn't serious fan appetite for women's best of 5. And at the slams you can't separate ticket sales so you can't link prize money to revenue. Rewarding less work? If work = time on court, yes, but this pales into insignificance given the symbolic positive power of 'equal prize money at slams' and the intractable problems that come with any other approach. Ie, (i) Have women's best of 5 at the slams despite no desire amongst fans or in the game for it, or (ii) Go backwards in time and set the women's prize money to be a fraction of the men's. Neither improves on the current situation. Both would replace a non problem with a real problem.
You’ve not addressed the doubles issue. It allows the top women to earn more than the men, which is not fair.
Albeit efforts at gender equality that cause reverse sexism are always quite funny.
Actual gender equality in sport would probably involve abolishing the separate men's and women's competition and just having one which is open to all...
Would solve all trans issues with one swoop. Not popular I suspect.
I never saw how that helped anything: Riggs was getting on for twice King's age and even so he had beaten the women's world number 1, Court, a few months earlier.
If she had beaten the then men's number 1 it would have been much more convincing.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
De Valera agreed with you. But the IRA thought of their enemy’s enemy as a friend. And so did the Nazis.
The wars between the Soviet Union and Finland are a case in point. Finland was rather unlucky to be 'done over' by the allies; for example, if they'd pressed on towards Leningrad, instead of stopping when they'd recouped the land they'd lost the Siege might well have been broken and the city taken by the Germans.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
Today's edition of 'Surely it's a parody?' from a Scottish nationalist:
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
Ah yes the famously non-agressive Scots and Irish.
Or, as a somewhat racist 'joke' of the 50's put it 'The Irish don't know what they want and are willing to fight for it!"
There was a German spy parachuted into Ireland to stir up the IRA and cause trouble in the north. In the few weeks he was working for them before the Garda caught up, he become rather disillusioned. He once told his hosts ‘you may know how to die for Ireland, but you don’t have a fucking clue how to fight for it.’
The Germans and the Irish seem unlikely bed-fellows.
The Germans had been trying to use the IRA as a weapon against the UK since *before* WWI...
Once you reach a high prevalence, contact tracing becomes pretty meaningless. It only works when there are sporadic cases.
I note the Netherlands dropped nearly all restrictions on June 23rd.
First, I live in NRW and I haven't heard that contact tracing has stopped. Which doesn't mean it hasn't, but the only report I have seen is the above tweet. What has happened is that in districts with a 7 day incidence of less than 10, some of the the requirements to collect contact data from people (to be used later in contact tracing, eg when visiting a library last week I had to sign in and out, now I won't have to) have been dropped. I don't know if this is a bad idea, but I suspect it has been done because the data showed almost no cases being traced that way?
Second, the 7 day per 100000 incidence rate in NRW is 6.6. This is slightly up on last week but obviously massively down on rates of 200 earlier in the year when contact tracing was still happening. So if it has stopped it won't be because a high prevalence has been reached.
Third the Netherlands dropped restrictions, but started bringing some back yesterday.
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
Except the viable alternative is both play three sets or both play five...
Maybe it's time for women to play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon. It looks like this final is going to be over in a very short time.
I’ve long advocated equal pay for equal sets. Shorter women’s games has long let the top female players milk the tournaments doubles pot too, in a way that the men cannot.
I'm not sure there's fan appetite for best of 5 women's matches. Their tennis product is (in general and with exceptions) not as good as the men's. The equal pay is only at slams and is symbolic, not related to time on court or box office power. By setting equal pay (for these slam events where the men and women share the draw and the venue) the tennis world is making a statement that women's hard work and talent is valued as much as men's.
Without wishing to degenerate this, if the product isn’t as good, why have equal pay? I think you are probably right, in that the depth of talent in women’s tennis is less than in the men’s, and as a rule there are more easy early round wins. But I do think there is an issue with three sets vs five.
It's just at the slams and is symbolic. A statement by the tennis world that men and women are valued equally. Important and correct imo.
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it now. It's not a problem.
In my eyes it is a mess. See my point about the doubles. It would be better to have either both play best of five or best of three. That shows that you value both the same. The current version is wrong.
It's just at the slams. They are special because they are the masthead of the sport and the draw and venue is shared by the sexes. You can't hypothecate the revenue. Tennis is unusual in this respect of having shared events at the pinnacle.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
And I should say I am not objecting to equal pay. It’s the unequal nature of the set up, especially the doubles opportunity.
Comments
Today’s seven-day average is up 30.0% on last week.
Friday: 30.7%
Thursday: 34.9%
Wednesday: 42.8%
Tuesday: 49.0%
Monday: 53.2%
Sunday: 66.9%
So cases are still going up, but not as quickly.
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1413876410150703106?s=20
Consider the alternative and you see why this is so. The alternative would be for the slams to define by how much they value men more than women. That's a minefield so they'd shirk it and go for 60% - and justify this by saying it's actually equal because the women play best of 3 instead of best of 5.
The women would then INSIST on playing best of 5. Which there isn't the fan appetite for and would bloat the schedule. You'd have an insoluble mess. And bad messaging flying about left right and centre.
So this is the way. How it is now. It's not a problem.
https://twitter.com/giulio_mattioli/status/1413833487682056198
* I do understand if Uran had been in yellow, then Martin wouldn't have been permitted such leeway.
And misleading videos on Social Media? Who would have though that?🤔
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1413849244776243200?s=20
Putting that in my simple model gives:
Peak 7 day average of cases of 55K on 5th August
Peak deaths at 2,050 on 13th August.
For what it's worth ...
(Assumes a local quadratic fit to government data on UK cases and deaths)
I note the Netherlands dropped nearly all restrictions on June 23rd.
https://observers.france24.com/en/20200203-china-coronavirus-bat-soup-debunk-videos-viral-palau-indonesia
Conclusion? - No women's best of 5. One of life's easier ones.
Les Pays-Bas annonce le rétablissement de restrictions avec la fermeture des restaurants et des discothèques. #Netherlands #Covid_19
Edit: they aren't closing them, yet, apparently - just limiting the hours
Also Dutch hospitalisations are actually down. At the mo
@rtenews
Those aged under 18 will be able to go inside bars and restaurants if they are accompanied by a vaccinated person, under a plan for reopening indoor hospitality that is due to go to Cabinet on Tuesday
How long before this is us again?
The fielding often hasn't been as good as in the mens game, but, to be fair, yesterday's Indian fielding was as good overall as any I've seen.
Reading interesting stuff about England’s hand in starting the Second World War. Scotland and Ireland actually had a pretty good relationship with Europe but England’s was confrontational which led to imposing harsh sanctions on Germany.
https://twitter.com/CalistaHebburn/status/1413845725155373060
It is now 30,504.
My simple model is showing it going up to 55,000, so admissions will quadruple to 2,050 with a 14 day lag.
EDIT: Many apologies - I'm predicting admissions not deaths
Not that that improves the game. AET is usually not great football. Spain/Croatia possibly excepted.
Seriously, I don't understand the reluctance on this front at all - despite the comments about quality from some here women's tennis is one of those where the attention and money rightly recognises that it is genuinely elite in its own right, with big names and big prizes. With no physical impediment to making the rules the same for men and women, why the heck not? It doesn't play second fiddle to the men's game, nor should it, so why not let both genders compete on the same basis? Why give succour to arguments the tournaments are not equivalent because the rules are not the same?
Make it equal in all things, as it should be.
We could reduce the men to three sets, that which they play most of the year, if you'd prefer.
Deaths are only about 8% of admissions so 2,050 admissions is about 160 daily deaths.
So it could be us in ten days. However we have quite an advantage in vaccinateds. Is it enough?
And, the Dutch deaths and hospital stats are still fine, as of now
https://twitter.com/CalistaHebburn/status/1413853561360891909
Edit: I see your correction above.
Scotland went from 164 cases on the 1st of May to 3333 and the 30th of June peak ni Scotland.
The North West went from 258 to 4430 on the 30th
The North East 71 to 2532
The East Midlands meanwhile has gone from 157 to 1476, ditto London, South East and East of England.
Hopefully we won't have to use our surge plan again, discontinuing operating and redeployment theatre staff and junior doctors.
As an aside. If Edward VIII had stayed on in 1936 would we now be a Republic?
Ah; memory stirs a bit 'The English are self-made and worship their Creator!'
The Scots keep the Sabbath and everything else they can lay their hands on.
"Kick in the teeth", "Summer nightmare', "'Arbitrary' ban".
Has anyone told them we're in the middle of a global pandemic?
*Read his diaries on this.
Not a sudden development.
If she had beaten the then men's number 1 it would have been much more convincing.
Given this, and given no appetite in the game or from the fans for women's best of 5, you have a choice between equal prize money or setting the women's as a fraction of the men's. The latter is a can of worms. So the bottom line is, equal prize money at tennis grand slams might irritate some blokes on the internet - and I get why - but it's better than any viable alternative.
Second, the 7 day per 100000 incidence rate in NRW is 6.6. This is slightly up on last week but obviously massively down on rates of 200 earlier in the year when contact tracing was still happening. So if it has stopped it won't be because a high prevalence has been reached.
Third the Netherlands dropped restrictions, but started bringing some back yesterday.