politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Super Tuesday: With just over four hours to go before the coun

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.

Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.

This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.

China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.

This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.

Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.

China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China

You are fighting a losing battle

No I am not, the facts are clear, coronavirus started in China due to the Chinese government's failure to ban open meat markets and experiments on bats.

End of conversation

Its also irrelevant.

A heart attack may be triggered by a lack of exercise and a bad diet but if the ambulance never turns up after repeated calls and it turns out there are no ambulances available anywhere in the country then something has gone wrong with those responsible for the ambulance service.

We have done well over 10k tests before the USA even hit 500 tests. While NYC had done zero tests. NYC did its first tests yesterday.

Do you think NYC has no travel to China? There's no Chinese resident in NYC which has one of the worlds most famous Chinatowns?

No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.

You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.

You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place

Surely you do both. You insist on only sorting out the original problem.

Carrying on with Philips analogy you want to sort his weight out to ensure he doesn't have a heart attack in the future. However because no ambulance turned up (as per Philip) he has died!

Not a lot of point in ensuring he doesn't die next time if he is already dead is there?

Gardenwalker said:

Dominic Raab will be Acting Prime Minister this summer:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/03/boris-johnson-paternity-leave-prime-minister-carrie-symonds

Raab FFS? Can't Carrie Symonds run the country while Boris looks after the baby?

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.

Actually, I think that maybe an understatement

I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.

It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.

Its more than just a betting site, its a community. Should we continue the communal conversation we were having on the old thread in the old thread and leave this one abandoned?

Or maybe he should set up "SeriousPoliticalBetting.com" where any non-betting post results in an instant ban.

And to stop CR going off on one, I shall place $500,000 to win on Lucky Dan, 3rd race at Riverside...

kjh said:

Surely you do both. You insist on only sorting out the original problem.

Carrying on with Philips analogy you want to sort his weight out to ensure he doesn't have a heart attack in the future. However because no ambulance turned up (as per Philip) he has died!

Not a lot of point in ensuring he doesn't die next time if he is already dead is there?

Precisely! In my example the initial heart attack was survivable (as many are given prompt treatment) and the ambulance was called but because of no ambulance ever coming its resulted in death.

That's what has happened in America. People who never even travelled are dead because of the absence of testing those who were returning to America.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.

Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.

This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.

China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.

This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.

Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.

China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China

You are fighting a losing battle

No I am not, the facts are clear, coronavirus started in China due to the Chinese government's failure to ban open meat markets and experiments on bats.

End of conversation

Watch those goalposts shift at rapid speed.

tyson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.

Actually, I think that maybe an understatement

I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.

It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.

I think the tips on this site so far for US 20 by our usual punters have been a bit shit really....

I should have posted here an email from my US friend who emailed to say that Bernie's star would initially shine brightly, Biden would comeback on superTuesday but Warren may well end up being a convention pick..this was months ago, and if I had followed his advice could have made a load of money by now....

Warren might do a bit better than expected if we assume at least some of Amy Klobuchar's voters want a woman president. Other than that thought, I have nothing and am contemplating an early night.

stodge said:

Evening all

To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?

I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.

As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.

Yes all states are allocate delegates prepositionally, and with the same 15% cut off.

Also worth remembering that delegates are allocated by congregational district, with a few also allocated at the state level.

if a candidate gets 15.5% in a state there could easily be half of the CDs where they have less than 15% so they will come away with few Delights, but a candidate with 14.5% will also probably get some.

If all bar one candidate get over the 15% cut off (in a CD or State), then it in effect becomes a 'winner take all' which a week ago some places like California looked lick being.

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.

Actually, I think that maybe an understatement

I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.

It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.

Define irony::
A bunch of monarchists pontificating on PB about a nation that ELECTS its head of state.

tyson said:

another_richard said:

tyson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.

Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.

This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.

China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.

This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.

Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.

China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China

The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.

No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this

No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives

Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...

The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind

Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.

I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.

A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....

Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start

I think it'll be bad.

It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.

Who knows.

BigRich said:

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Dow down 800 - about 3%

It’s doing its best to recover towards close, as I suggested it might, but it’s such a weak one that I think holding sell positions overnight is the best play.

There could be some movement because of the Democrats primary poling, showing sanders is down, if not out.

But trying to separate the two is not relay practical at least not for me.

Interesting point. So a Sanders win tomorrow sends markets down, a Biden win, not so much.

Which are people expecting?

TSE: "I didn't want to win the FA Cup anyway."

DecrepiterJohnL said:

tyson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.

Actually, I think that maybe an understatement

I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.

It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.

I think the tips on this site so far for US 20 by our usual punters have been a bit shit really....

I should have posted here an email from my US friend who emailed to say that Bernie's star would initially shine brightly, Biden would comeback on superTuesday but Warren may well end up being a convention pick..this was months ago, and if I had followed his advice could have made a load of money by now....

Warren might do a bit better than expected if we assume at least some of Amy Klobuchar's voters want a woman president. Other than that thought, I have nothing and am contemplating an early night.

Warren may pick up a few of Klobucar's supporters what just what any female but I think the formal endorsement will keep that down, and its combined with Peats endowment,.

Warren will do well in her home state of Massachusetts, but I think she will be close (but under) to the 15% cut of in a lot of other pleases.

Omnium said:

tyson said:

another_richard said:

tyson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

.

China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.

This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.

Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.

China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China

The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.

No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this

No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives

Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...

The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind

Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.

I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.

A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....

Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start

I think it'll be bad.

It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.

Who knows.

It would be a little ironic if the baby boomers who have scooped the pool at every stage with free University education, insufficient taxes for the services they have enjoyed and unmatched pension entitlements, never to be seen again, ended out checking out a little early because of a virus.

DavidL said:

Omnium said:

tyson said:

another_richard said:

tyson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

.

.

China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.

This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.

Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.

China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China

The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.

No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this

No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives

Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...

The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind

Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.

I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.

A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....

Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start

I think it'll be bad.

It's not sure though that a killing off of the old by the virus won't engender a great boost to the economies of the west. A huge reduction in the overhead now of supporting the old, a big boost in government death-tax revenue, and lots of mid-lifers with money to spend.

Who knows.

It would be a little ironic if the baby boomers who have scooped the pool at every stage with free University education, insufficient taxes for the services they have enjoyed and unmatched pension entitlements, never to be seen again, ended out checking out a little early because of a virus.

All those 5-beds in Zone 5 suddenly freeing up...

HYUFD said:

eadric said:

IanB2 said:

It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.

I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America.
Same as after WW2

We already have socialised medicine in the UK and one of Boris' main campaign themes was more money for it, even Trump wants healthcare reform.
However waiting in line for your state hand out medical treatment alone is not the solution to healthcare issues, the patient also needs choice, alternative private options and a second opinion

You surely don´t believe anything that Boris Johnson says! He heads a gang of unscrupulous incompetents and liars. Nobody should trust them an inch.

IanB2 said:

BigRich said:

IanB2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Dow down 800 - about 3%

It’s doing its best to recover towards close, as I suggested it might, but it’s such a weak one that I think holding sell positions overnight is the best play.

There could be some movement because of the Democrats primary poling, showing sanders is down, if not out.

But trying to separate the two is not relay practical at least not for me.

Interesting point. So a Sanders win tomorrow sends markets down, a Biden win, not so much.

Which are people expecting?

possibly, I am only speculating, but also possible that Sanders is seen (accurately or not) as a weaker candidate against Trump, so maybe the revers.

out of interest, have the markets moved before for an unexpected result in the primorys of any party?

BigRich said:

TimT said:

Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...

"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."

Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?

Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?

I thought a 'low tern out' meant that fish stocks were getting low.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.

You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.

You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place

No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.

The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.

The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.

There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance

Chameleon said:

stodge said:

Evening all

To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?

I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.

As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.

Yep, proportionally within state and district, but with a 15% bar. Biden's had quite the surge, which should minimise the CA damage, and give him a shot of winning Texas. If Sanders is only marginally ahead after tonight it's a great night for Biden.

I'm not sure if he'll even win Arkansas anymore. His support is ebbing.

Yes, some very convincing swings in all the polls, including the two national ones showing Biden 3 and 8 points ahead. I lumped on Biden yesterday and see no reason to reverse. Too soon to be sure, but Sanders seems to have had a high floor but a low ceiling, and his success was simply based on the multiple rivals.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

TimT said:

BigRich said:

TimT said:

Hope this is close enough to a betting purpose ...

"Eleven of the fourteen Super Tuesday states have severe storms, heavy rain, or snow in the forecast."

Weather notwithstanding, turnout has been high in the earlier Dem primaries - at near or actual record levels in S Carolina, but the youth vote is down somewhat relative to 2016. Good for Biden?

Low tern out, typically gives a boost to whoever has the most enthusiastic supporters, maybe sanders, Unless the coming together of 3 candidates yesterday changed that?

I thought a 'low tern out' meant that fish stocks were getting low.

I'm sorry I don't get that? perhaps this is one of those mistakes a dyslectic makes when nobody prof reads his posts?

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

Only HY could argue the analogy rather than take the point

HYUFD said:

eadric said:

IanB2 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

IanB2 said:

WhisperingOracle said:

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

Ratters said:

Which candidate is best positioned for a health crisis where the US system fairs far worse than the rest of the developed world?

I've not yet entered this market, but I'm tempted to start with going long on Sanders for the presidency.

I asked the other day whether Biden actually has a healthcare plan? No one seems to know.

Just topped up on Biden for POTUS. My thinking is that a major, major crisis will leave voters scared and desperate for experience, stability and normal. Not Crazy Bernie and not 'there is no virus' Trump.

Ike again?

Alternatively it might leave them wanting decisiveness. BIden is the relaxing, reassuring uncle figure, I think, not the man of action.

None of them are decisive. Claiming it’s a hoax, and then promising a million tests you cannot deliver isn’t decisive.

Sanders' maximalist position on healthcare has the potential to sound very decisive to voters in the midst of a crisis, even if he can't get it enacted. It could take the edge off the 'extreme' attacks if voters thought they were in a situation that demanded radical solutions.

It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.

I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America.

Same as after WW2

We already have socialised medicine in the UK and one of Boris' main campaign themes was more money for it, even Trump wants healthcare reform.

However waiting in line for your state hand out medical treatment alone is not the solution to healthcare issues, the patient also needs choice, alternative private options and a second opinion

If you give everyone an income sufficient to afford the private option then it is a choice. Otherwise it is only an option for the privileged few.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

Ridiculous! Shit happens, its how you deal with it that matters, not trying to prevent all shit from ever happening.

May I extend rcs1000's analogy?

House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?

another_richard said:

tyson said:

another_richard said:

tyson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Omnium said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Not to sound all eadric but I think more Americans may now die from this illness than Chinese before its over.

Wildly unlikely given how many more Chinese people there are than Americans.

This will though just become just another flu called 'covid19' and be forgotten. Behind the scenes there will be more targeted stuff, but its the same big picture.

China is willing to enforce quarantine and is doing containment in a way the US isn't bothering.

This all happened in China in one province. Its already in 12 states now in America and they've done zero containment.

Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.

China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China

The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.

No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this

No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives

Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...

The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind

Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.

I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.

A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....

Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start

And a lack of leadership at all levels.

How many times have Biden, Sanders et al mentioned coronovirus and suggested constructive policies ?

I do think that the US is singularly ill equipped to deal with this kind of crisis...but Trump's hoax comments the other week were staggeringly reckless...and just for that he deserves really to be charged with a high crime and replaced....

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.

You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.

You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place

No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.

The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.

The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.

There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance

Its not possible to prevent it happening again. This is about the 7th major epidemic of this century so far, epidemics happen its a fact of life.

It is possible to contain and the CDC have failed to do so. That was their job, not preventing it starting in the first place.

Based on history we should expect two more major epidemics at least this decade after this one.

Gardenwalker said:

Didn’t we learn from the Brexit wars that HYUFD is a total waste of bytes?

Ignore.

Yet I correctly forecast the Boris victory to deliver Brexit, sorry you can't take a contrary view but I will continue to make it

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Casino_Royale said:

At least half the comments on this thread should have been flagged for going off-topic so soon.

Actually, I think that maybe an understatement

I mean, it's a betting site and it's a huge betting night tonight.

It's just rude. Unless the subject is pertinent to the betting.

Its more than just a betting site, its a community. Should we continue the communal conversation we were having on the old thread in the old thread and leave this one abandoned?

Or maybe he should set up "SeriousPoliticalBetting.com" where any non-betting post results in an instant ban.

And to stop CR going off on one, I shall place $500,000 to win on Lucky Dan, 3rd race at Riverside...

‘That horse is gonna run second!!‘

‘There’s been a mistake, gimme my money back’

Ya folla?

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

The owners of houses 1 through 4 who sat out the burning down of the terrace without alerting the hapless residents of house 5 must also bear some of the responsibility.

Italian daily update

2502 infected since the beginning of the outbreak

160 healed
79 dead

229 in intensive care
1034 in hospital
1000 isolated at home

Regional breakdown

1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

Ridiculous! Shit happens, its how you deal with it that matters, not trying to prevent all shit from ever happening.

May I extend rcs1000's analogy?

House one had a fire, escaped due to the smoke alarm and called the fire brigade. Fire brigade never turned up and it took 5 hours to get from a small fire in house one to engulfing house 5 and killing the people sleeping there without an alarm. Do the fire brigade bear any responsibility for not turning up within 5 hours of getting the call?

Shit does not always need to happen no and if you are negligently allowing such shit to happen then it is a major problem.

In terms of the fire brigade it would depend how many fires they had to deal with that night

It does just happen. Viruses evolve.

None. The CDC have had no other major fires to deal with and they've had months after this outbreak started to react.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

There was no statement the house was built of especially combustible material.

If the electric blanket was built in a particularly poor fashion then the manufacturer would also bear some responsibility as would of course traders in live animal meat and scientists experimenting on bats in China as well as the Chinese government

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

Was it China's fault that Trump initially stated that Corona virus was a hoax?

It was China's fault for creating Corona virus in the first place

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

It's the sole actor fallacy.

TimT said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

No it is the most relevant thing about the whole affair.

You can send as many ambulances as possible to help someone who has suffered a heart attack but if they keep not taking exercise and eating poorly eventually they will suffer another heart attack that kills them.

You can test to try and contain the problem but of more significance would be avoiding the problem again in the first place

No it is not. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise but it is not in the US Federal Governments purview.

The CDC's job is not to ensure that no epidemic ever breaks out anywhere in the world. That is impossible, epidemics happen from time to time, every few years on average.

The CDC's job is to ensure they are prepared for outbreaks and that they control and contain them. They have failed here.

There is no cure for coronavirus, containing it is one thing but only limiting the damage now matter how hard you try, preventing it happening again so there is no repeat of the damage at all is of more importance

I wish you'd stick to posting on things you know something about. What on earth do you mean by 'preventing it happening again?'

If you mean, preventing this COVID virus causing the same damage again, that is highly unlikely as there will be some herd immunity going forward.

If you mean preventing future zoonotic diseases, what you're saying is we should be stopping evolution. Good luck with that.

Wasn't this virus intelligently designed?

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

It's the sole actor fallacy.

Indeed. In CAS, it is the interactions between components, not the components themselves, that define the properties of the system.

tyson said:

another_richard said:

tyson said:

another_richard said:

tyson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

HYUFD said:

Omnium said:

Sure, but China will fail in containment if anyone big fails. China has, quite amazingly, perhaps contained this. The rest of the world won't do so though.

China caused it in the first place, parts of the world like Singapore and South Korea are also containing it better than China

The origin is certainly China. There, some people did do things that posed a health risk somewhat above the norm. It'd be stupid to blame China in this.

No, it would be stupid not to blame China in this

No. It is stupid not to accept Trump is putting his citizens at risk of their lives

Until about ten days ago Trump was calling the Virus a hoax...then it hit the markets...

The poor preparation by the US to manage the epidemic may prove to be one of the worst policy decisions in the history of mankind

Trump doesn't control every level of government in the USA.

I'd be interested to know what, for example, the Governors of California and Washington have been doing.

A fragmented, business oriented and insurance based health system which people cannot afford....and a general mistrust of Govt will undermine most attempts to mitigate the worst excesses of this pandemic....

Conavirus could be horrendous for the US...it's been horrendous for China..and that is just the start

And a lack of leadership at all levels.

How many times have Biden, Sanders et al mentioned coronovirus and suggested constructive policies ?

I do think that the US is singularly ill equipped to deal with this kind of crisis...but Trump's hoax comments the other week were staggeringly reckless...and just for that he deserves really to be charged with a high crime and replaced....

Trump's actions have been worse than a crime - they've been a blunder and damaged himself - which is what will really upset him.

But the dreadfulness of Trump does not excuse the lack of preparation by other levels of government.

Much of governance in the USA is probably useless and rotten I suspect irrespective of who is nominally in charge of it.

With a consequence that people become even more distrustful of it.

Heimlich manoeuvre for Liverpool.....

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

The owners of houses 1 through 4 who sat out the burning down of the terrace without alerting the hapless residents of house 5 must also bear some of the responsibility.

They were high on crystal meth at the time, so they didn't think to warn them.

Didn't I mention that in my original post?

HYUFD said:

I will post about whatever I damn well like and it is quite clear that live meat markets and experiments on bats increased the risk of this virus emerging

Viruses emerge, its a fact of life. How or why the virus emerged is not the CDC's job.

Do you know what the CDC's job is?

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

It's the sole actor fallacy.

I bet HY will find it a lot easier to brainstorm other explanations after his own electric blanket has burned down half of Chigwell.

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

The owners of houses 1 through 4 who sat out the burning down of the terrace without alerting the hapless residents of house 5 must also bear some of the responsibility.

They were high on crystal meth at the time, so they didn't think to warn them.

Didn't I mention that in my original post?

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

eadric said:

IanB2 said:

rottenborough said:

IanB2 said:

Ratters said:

Which candidate is best positioned for a health crisis where the US system fairs far worse than the rest of the developed world?

I've not yet entered this market, but I'm tempted to start with going long on Sanders for the presidency.

I asked the other day whether Biden actually has a healthcare plan? No one seems to know.

Just topped up on Biden for POTUS. My thinking is that a major, major crisis will leave voters scared and desperate for experience, stability and normal. Not Crazy Bernie and not 'there is no virus' Trump.

Ike again?

Alternatively it might leave them wanting decisiveness. BIden is the relaxing, reassuring uncle figure, I think, not the mame' attacks if voters thought they were in a situation that demanded radical solutions.

It would be nice to think that a silver lining to this crisis will be waking Americans up to the idea that collective action and government intervention can be a force for good, and indeed without either any society has big vulnerabilities.

I think Southam is right. One consequence of this virus, as and when it finally buggers off, will be a dramatic shift left towards bigger government, socialized medicine, and so on. This will be true even and maybe especially in America.

Same as after WW2

We already have socialised medicine in the UK and one of Boris' main campaign themes was more money for it, even Trump wants healthcare reform.

However waiting in line for your state hand out medical treatment alone is not the solution to healthcare issues, the patient also needs choice, alternative private options and a second opinion

If you give everyone an income sufficient to afford the private option then it is a choice. Otherwise it is only an option for the privileged few.

So what, there are very few things beyond basic essentials most people can afford.

Plus if you can afford to go private it reduces the pressure on the national healthcare system and the waiting lists accordingly

Oh, it's time to roll out the argument that the privileged few are actually being altruistic and doing the plebs a favour when they jump to the front of the queue.

It is very kind of you to give me a helpful reminder why I am a Socialist.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

I will post about whatever I damn well like and it is quite clear that live meat markets and experiments on bats increased the risk of this virus emerging

Viruses emerge, its a fact of life. How or why the virus emerged is not the CDC's job.

Do you know what the CDC's job is?

How America contains virus outbreaks to protect Americans is up to America, of more importance to the world is reducing the risk of such virus outbreaks occurring in the first place

NickPalmer said:

Chameleon said:

stodge said:

Evening all

To try and being us back on topic, a question - I presume the states voting tonight will award delegates proportionally so it's not a winner takes all for the delegates?

I could imagine Sanders winning states like Vermont and Maine convincingly and carrying most of the delegates but presumably Texas and California have many more delegates and it may be Biden will do better where he needs to pick up large numbers of delegates so overall he will come back with a strong delegate haul even if Sanders wins more states.

As for Bloomberg, I suppose he wins Arkansas and picks up delegates elsewhere but he doesn't look like the "stop Sanders" candidate any more.

Yep, proportionally within state and district, but with a 15% bar. Biden's had quite the surge, which should minimise the CA damage, and give him a shot of winning Texas. If Sanders is only marginally ahead after tonight it's a great night for Biden.

I'm not sure if he'll even win Arkansas anymore. His support is ebbing.

Yes, some very convincing swings in all the polls, including the two national ones showing Biden 3 and 8 points ahead. I lumped on Biden yesterday and see no reason to reverse. Too soon to be sure, but Sanders seems to have had a high floor but a low ceiling, and his success was simply based on the multiple rivals.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Given your personal preference for Sanders that post demonstrates a commendable level of objectivity.

TimT said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

Was it China's fault that Trump initially stated that Corona virus was a hoax?

It was China's fault for creating Corona virus in the first place

I believe the quote is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"

Be as patronising and pompous as usual but the fact remains it was China which allowed live animal meat markets to go effectively unregulated and it was China which allowed dangerous live animal testing which allowed the virus to fester

another_richard said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

Italian daily update

2502 infected since the beginning of the outbreak

160 healed
79 dead

229 in intensive care
1034 in hospital
1000 isolated at home

Regional breakdown

1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata

The Guardian says that the 79 deaths were all aged between 63 and 95 with underlying serious illnesses.

Is that correct ?

Average age of the Italian dead (up to yesterday) was 80. You can see why that leading Italian doctor said that only a minority of the deaths were actually caused by the virus, the majority simply accelerated (my word).

SandyRentool said:

Beibheirli_C said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

@HYUFD

May I use an analogy?

On your street are five houses. In House Number One, an electric blanket catches fire. All five houses burn down.

In Houses One through Four, the residents fitted smoke detectors. The consequence of which is that - although the houses were burnt down - everyone survived.

In House Five, the owner thought fitting smoke alarms was "fear mongering". When his house burnt down, his wife and child died.

Does the owner of House Five have any responsibility for the deaths, or does it all fall on House One?

Ultimately it falls on House One as he caused the fire and used an electric blanket in a dangerous condition.

Of course it might have been advisable for House 5 to buy a smoke alarm to limit the damage but that does not absolve the owner of House 1 of ultimate responsibility

What about the builder who built the houses so close together and of combustible material? What about the manufacturer of the electric blanket. Or the fire service - was their response up to scratch? Or the politicians and media that put such silly notions into the head of Mr no. 5?

You are way too quick to jump to conclusions.

It is actually the fault of the electric blanket manufacturer for making such a rubbish product.

The user should have had it PAT tested.

Yes. My electric blanket is 21 years old and never been serviced or tested. Is that silly?

Incidentally I've had a real life equivalent of rcs1000's analogy. Nearly a decade ago while asleep in our house which at the time was the end house of a mews a very serious fire started 4 doors down. We were woken up by the fire brigade banging very, very loudly on all the doors shouting "Fire! Everyone out! Fire! Everyone Out!" repeatedly

The fire brigade did their job and ensured the entire block had been evacuated. That is part of what the fire brigade is there for. One of my neighbours was away so they returned home to a boarded up front door as when nobody left their house the fire brigade broke the door down not taking any chances that anyone might be asleep inside.

This fire was not accidental, it was arson and they set alight the gas pipe into one of my neighbours house so the arsonist was most definitely responsible. But if the fire brigade knowing there was a fire in the middle of the night had not bothered to turn up (when they could) or having done so did not bother to evacuate or warn the people in the buildings while watching them burn down then they would have been negligent too. Instead they were professional and did their job thankfully.

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

Italian daily update

2502 infected since the beginning of the outbreak

160 healed
79 dead

229 in intensive care
1034 in hospital
1000 isolated at home

Regional breakdown

1.326 cases in Lombardia, 398 in Emilia Romagna, 297 in Veneto, 56 in Piemonte, 59 Marche, 30 in Campania, 19 in Liguria, 18 in Toscana, 11 Lazio, 13 in Friuli Venezia Giulia, 5 in Sicilia, 6 in Puglia, 6 in Abruzzo, 4 in Trentino, 3 in Molise, 8 in Umbria, 1 each in Bolzano, in Calabria, in Sardegna e Basilicata

The Guardian says that the 79 deaths were all aged between 63 and 95 with underlying serious illnesses.

Is that correct ?

Average age of the Italian dead (up to yesterday) was 80. You can see why that leading Italian doctor said that only a minority of the deaths were actually caused by the virus, the majority simply accelerated (my word).

So their deaths were caused by the virus, otherwise they'd still be alive now. Bloody experts!