politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From a 4.9% betting chance to 75% one in just nine days – Bide

Never in doubt.

Buttigieg for Veep?

Third!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Buttigieg for Veep?

Surely will have to be a woman?

Disclaimer: obviously it doesn’t have to be, but practically...

Warren?

So, who’ll admit to getting that 21 or 22 on Biden on 24th Feb?

Ideal scenario: Pete for Veep, Biden defeats Trump, 25th Amendment exercised when Biden's mental decline becomes too serious.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Buttigieg for Veep?

Surely will have to be a woman?

Disclaimer: obviously it doesn’t have to be, but practically...

Warren?

Clinton?

Chelsea?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/joshwoolcott/status/1235132256303316992

I hold no truck with anti-vaxers who are the lowest of the low but to be fair in 2004 the MMR bullshit was being taken seriously by far too many otherwise intelligent people and Andrew Wakefield was still being taken seriously as a doctor.

It was only in November 2004 that Dispatches revealed the extent of Wakefield's fraud and he was only struck off by the GMC 6 years after that.

So someone gullible enough to fall for Wakefield's bullshit (as even the Lancet had done!) earlier in 2004 isn't remotely as comprehensively stupid as someone who believes it in 2020.

Philip_Thompson said:

Ideal scenario: Pete for Veep, Biden defeats Trump, 25th Amendment exercised when Biden's mental decline becomes too serious.

Do you remember all the mockery and vilification of Ronald Reagan for his supposed lack of mental acuity? Reagan! - the best of the post-war bunch.
Unfortunately Biden is not in the same league, and whether compos mentis or not he comes over as rather shallow and boorish. You have to pity the US, a great country no longer blessed with leaders who are up to the job.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Buttigieg for Veep?

I'm on at 20/1

But likely to be a woman.

Sandpit said:

So, who’ll admit to getting that 21 or 22 on Biden on 24th Feb?

Best I can say is I got £25 on @ 14/1 on Biden for next president with BetVictor. 2/1 now.

I think that the most outstanding bet at the moment is to Lay Trump at 1.75 or thereabouts. I`d make him slightly odds against. I`m not even totally convinced that he will run. Virus and markets are going against him.

https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1234982923515785216

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1234982923515785216

I don`t think this is totally crazy. I think that that the damage the virus is doing is the mass panic it is creating which IMO is way out of proportion to the physical effects of the virus.

Positive thinking is better than negative thinking. It doesnt seem top of the list of recommended responses but could be somewhere near the end of the top 10.

I hope Bloomberg stays above 15% in California.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1234982923515785216

I don`t think this is totally crazy. I think that that the damage the virus is doing is the mass panic it is creating which IMO is way out of proportion to the physical effects of the virus.

"Keep calm and carry on" didn't mean ignore the threat and take no precautions, it just meant don't panic but do what is needed.

America from the top down is trying to ignore the issue and hope it blows past them. Praying won't be a solution.

Of course praying is not this issue. It`s about thinking about the issue in a rational way in accord with the evidence. This IMO does not warrant the mass panic we are experiencing.

One word for those fretting about the impending bog roll crisis:

Bidet

nichomar said:

Bog roll rationing in Australia only four per person

What do they do with the multipacks of 9?

The Republican National Convention is in August. Is it possible that another Republican candidate could challenge Trump for the nomination?

I`ve had a hunch for a while, and it has deepened recently, that Trump may be challenged, or may choose not to run. He can be Laid on BF at a low-risk 1.06.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stocky said:

Nigelb said:

https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1234982923515785216

I don`t think this is totally crazy. I think that that the damage the virus is doing is the mass panic it is creating which IMO is way out of proportion to the physical effects of the virus.

"Keep calm and carry on" didn't mean ignore the threat and take no precautions, it just meant don't panic but do what is needed.

America from the top down is trying to ignore the issue and hope it blows past them. Praying won't be a solution.

Of course praying is not this issue. It`s about thinking about the issue in a rational way in accord with the evidence. This IMO does not warrant the mass panic we are experiencing.

Our government isn't panicking it is acting calmly and rationally rejecting the mass hysteria and panicky overreactions of people like eadric on this board.

I think we may be misundertanding each other. I agree with you. Our government has responded correctly in my view.

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/joshwoolcott/status/1235132256303316992

I hold no truck with anti-vaxers who are the lowest of the low but to be fair in 2004 the MMR bullshit was being taken seriously by far too many otherwise intelligent people and Andrew Wakefield was still being taken seriously as a doctor.

It was only in November 2004 that Dispatches revealed the extent of Wakefield's fraud and he was only struck off by the GMC 6 years after that.

So someone gullible enough to fall for Wakefield's bullshit (as even the Lancet had done!) earlier in 2004 isn't remotely as comprehensively stupid as someone who believes it in 2020.

Wakefield's infamous paper linking MMR with autism, and the accompanying press conference, occurred in 1998. Even if you didn't know he was an actual fraud in 2004, the scientific consensus against his 'findings' was massive by that time. Unfortunately, too many uniformed journalists presented him as a Galileo figure up until, and even beyond, his exposure as a crook.

Indeed I 100% agree. But the GMC was still accepting him as a Doctor, the Lancet only retracted the findings in 2004 (I don't know whether that was before or after the 2004 article quoted) etc

It was silly but somewhat understandable to believe Doctor Wakefield in 2004 (especially before the Lancet retracted his findings that year).

It is stupid beyond all belief to believe the fraudulent struck off Andrew Wakefield in 2020.

Yes but everyone knows scientists are all lying lefties, as seen in Climategate and revealed by retired Tory politicians and right-leaning columnists.

brokenwheel said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Buttigieg for Veep?

What demographic does he add? If he would win blue collar votes in the Midwest it may help, but that's not his base.

Biden's ideal pick would probably be a Latino woman. But absent any realistic chance of that he could go for Beto.

Same question: what does Beto add? My guess is when the veep pick is announced there will be a race to google the representative for the Great State of Wazoo. Bonus smart-arse points for those who remember which law exam that state featured in.
Spoiler: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.pdf

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/joshwoolcott/status/1235132256303316992

I hold no truck with anti-vaxers who are the lowest of the low but to be fair in 2004 the MMR bullshit was being taken seriously by far too many otherwise intelligent people and Andrew Wakefield was still being taken seriously as a doctor.

It was only in November 2004 that Dispatches revealed the extent of Wakefield's fraud and he was only struck off by the GMC 6 years after that.

So someone gullible enough to fall for Wakefield's bullshit (as even the Lancet had done!) earlier in 2004 isn't remotely as comprehensively stupid as someone who believes it in 2020.

Wakefield's infamous paper linking MMR with autism, and the accompanying press conference, occurred in 1998. Even if you didn't know he was an actual fraud in 2004, the scientific consensus against his 'findings' was massive by that time. Unfortunately, too many uniformed journalists presented him as a Galileo figure up until, and even beyond, his exposure as a crook.

Indeed I 100% agree. But the GMC was still accepting him as a Doctor, the Lancet only retracted the findings in 2004 (I don't know whether that was before or after the 2004 article quoted) etc

It was silly but somewhat understandable to believe Doctor Wakefield in 2004 (especially before the Lancet retracted his findings that year).

It is stupid beyond all belief to believe the fraudulent struck off Andrew Wakefield in 2020.

Yes but everyone knows scientists are all lying lefties, as seen in Climategate and revealed by retired Tory politicians and right-leaning columnists.

I know you're being sarcastic but I don't believe that, I'm firmly pro-science.

And my point is if one of those columnists you refer to is criticising anti-vaxxers today in 2020 then I 100% back that, even if they were gullible enough to fall for Andrew Wakefield's fraud before it was revealed to be fraud.

Being willing to acknowledge you were wrong in the past is a strength not a weakness.

Quincel said:

Stocky said:

The Republican National Convention is in August. Is it possible that another Republican candidate could challenge Trump for the nomination?

I`ve had a hunch for a while, and it has deepened recently, that Trump may be challenged, or may choose not to run. He can be Laid on BF at a low-risk 1.06.

Interesting, why has it deepened recently? I wondered if he might face a real challenger but have dismissed the idea for the last few months.

I think a challenger is unlikely, but wonder whether it is (in theory) possible.

More likely he will not run. Trump`s mind-set is that he doesn`t fight battles he thinks he may not win. Internal polling may guide him. There is also a possible health issue. Through turnout shifts alone the Dems have got a big advantage this time and the virus and economic/market factors will to some extent work against Trump (possibly to a large extent).

However, the Reps have a formidable (and dodgy and ruthless) social media operation. But I wonder whether they exhausted this potential last time.

In summary, I`m a big Layer of Trump for next president - whoever the Dems pick. But especially if they go for Biden, who will get the black vote out.

Amazingly Clinton is now in to 40/1

That’s absolutely barmy.

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

nichomar said:

Bog roll rationing in Australia only four per person

What do they do with the multipacks of 9?

I thought I had bought a 16 pack of rolls from Amazon a few years ago as I was doing a shop there and it was on offer and I wasn't paying too much attention.

When it was delivered I received a case of the 16 packs of rolls. I think from memory perhaps half a dozen packs in the case. Considered sending it back, but worked out it was much cheaper per roll than buying it normally and it had no expiry date so kept it. Gone through it all now but that would have been handy in a "crisis" like this LOL.

I just buy loo roll in online shops every few months in packs of 24. Far cheaper and it's not hard to store (it's bulky but light, so putting it on the top of cupboards isn't too hard). Got about 50 rolls at the moment for a house of 4 people.

Indeed that's what I had meant to do, not order a case of those packs lol.

Would your travel insurance pay out if you had to self isolate? How would you prove you had to isolate?

Bog roll is nice to have but way down my essential list of survival items when it comes to it.

If you’re quarantined at home then you can just have a shower or bath.

And, in the very unlikely event the water supply fails (you just need a few engineers in a few fairly isolated pumping and treatment stations and a team of leak fixers - it isn’t a high risk coronavirus occupation) you’ll have bigger fish to fry.

nichomar said:

Would your travel insurance pay out if you had to self isolate? How would you prove you had to isolate?

Depends on the wording of your policy but the ones I read recently covered cancellation if you were told to quarantine by medical authorities, so a doctor's letter telling you to self-isolate may be enough.

Is this a wind up? The South African government health department have retweeted a parody account’s joke about Coronavirus and left it up for a day

Is it really the SA DofH?

Casino_Royale said:

Amazingly Clinton is now in to 40/1

That’s absolutely barmy.

A decrepit Biden is going to be the Democrat candidate. That is also absolutely barmy.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

brokenwheel said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Buttigieg for Veep?

What demographic does he add? If he would win blue collar votes in the Midwest it may help, but that's not his base.

Biden's ideal pick would probably be a Latino woman. But absent any realistic chance of that he could go for Beto.

Same question: what does Beto add? My guess is when the veep pick is announced there will be a race to google the representative for the Great State of Wazoo. Bonus smart-arse points for those who remember which law exam that state featured in.
Spoiler: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.pdf

Hey, as I said the Dems don't have much to work with.

Beto has much more history working on the Latino vote, and could take charge of that push. Although in many ways he's a moderate, he's not totally hated by the Left. Also someone from outside the North/Northeast.

VP picks are rarely people who could overshadow the president.

The alternatives seem to bring less.

Biden has Black support so why pick Abrams? Besides she's trumpeted as a rising star, VP is not the ideal position to advance from.

Biden eats the Butt/Klob vote so no need for them.

Warren? Olive branch to the Left maybe, but she's ambitious and would not be controllable.

isam said:

Is this a wind up? The South African government health department have retweeted a parody account’s joke about Coronavirus and left it up for a day

Is it really the SA DofH?

Nothing surprises me about South Africa anymore.

Seems to me that the government’s advice since Monday has vindicated Eadric. Sure, they were a bit more sober but the underlying message was the same. Containment is nearing an end, a very big proportion of the population will end up catching the virus until herd immunity kicks in and on the best available data, this will cause a pretty unthinkable amount of critical care cases and deaths.

Interesting that the Singapore govt also gave a more negative message to its public today, telling them that the small handful of daily cases “may not be normal” and to expect a potentially significant increase, because they cannot close the country to foreign travellers indefinitely.

Meanwhile the Chinese ambassador to UN is talking in terms of “victory”...

The glimmer as I see it is that the mortality rate may be far lower and infection rate higher than they are supposing. The more I read of the symptoms, the more convinced I am that my family and I might have had it here in Sing. But none of us were tested because apart from my son who recovered quickly, we didn’t have a fever and hadn’t been to China. We were instead told to self isolate and I had to keep going back every 2-3 days for a progress check, since my symptoms were worst.

I now read that the newest data indicate that fever is only prevalent in 85% of cases. And potentially fewer, if having a fever has been a typical hurdle to meet before being tested. Yet I had pretty much every other symptom of mild infection. Chest pain, awful breathlessness, fatigue, persistent shallow cough, initial sore throat etc... But I’ll probably never know now.

The data from the Diamond Princess should give some encouragement too. A ship of old people and still only 6 deaths out of 705 cases. Sure, lots of cases remain unresolved but this is not at the 8-10% end of the spectrum one might expect given the probable demographics.

kinabalu said:

Disappointed it's not going to be Bernie. Biden will doubtless beat Trump - which let's face it is the main thing - but IMO Bernie would have done so too. President Sanders could have been iconic and the necessary game-changer for a country so wealthy and powerful yet with such deeply offensive levels of poverty and inequality. Change is coming - but not quite yet.

That said, Biden is OK. And compared to the individual he will replace he is the Second Coming. So, yes, I'm totally behind him now. Whatever it takes, including the right medication. C'mon Joe!

Biden won't beat Trump. Very few people who have held cabinet positions go on the be president, it IS only ex-VP'sn but they either did something special in office, or ran against a VP. Biden is a dafty and his son already caused one president to be impeached.

kamski said:

northernpowerhouse2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/joshwoolcott/status/1235132256303316992

I hold no truck with anti-vaxers who are the lowest of the low but to be fair in 2004 the MMR bullshit was being taken seriously by far too many otherwise intelligent people and Andrew Wakefield was still being taken seriously as a doctor.

It was only in November 2004 that Dispatches revealed the extent of Wakefield's fraud and he was only struck off by the GMC 6 years after that.

So someone gullible enough to fall for Wakefield's bullshit (as even the Lancet had done!) earlier in 2004 isn't remotely as comprehensively stupid as someone who believes it in 2020.

Wakefield's infamous paper linking MMR with autism, and the accompanying press conference, occurred in 1998. Even if you didn't know he was an actual fraud in 2004, the scientific consensus against his 'findings' was massive by that time. Unfortunately, too many uniformed journalists presented him as a Galileo figure up until, and even beyond, his exposure as a crook.

Indeed I 100% agree. But the GMC was still accepting him as a Doctor, the Lancet only retracted the findings in 2004 (I don't know whether that was before or after the 2004 article quoted) etc

It was silly but somewhat understandable to believe Doctor Wakefield in 2004 (especially before the Lancet retracted his findings that year).

It is stupid beyond all belief to believe the fraudulent struck off Andrew Wakefield in 2020.

Yes but everyone knows scientists are all lying lefties, as seen in Climategate and revealed by retired Tory politicians and right-leaning columnists.

I know you're being sarcastic but I don't believe that, I'm firmly pro-science.

And my point is if one of those columnists you refer to is criticising anti-vaxxers today in 2020 then I 100% back that, even if they were gullible enough to fall for Andrew Wakefield's fraud before it was revealed to be fraud.

Being willing to acknowledge you were wrong in the past is a strength not a weakness.

And just because you might believe that climate change might be happening, doesn’t mean you have to endorse the shocking deceptions that climategate exposed.

what shocking deceptions?

Presumably the selective quoting absent all context in some of the reporting?

Selebian said:

kamski said:

northernpowerhouse2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/joshwoolcott/status/1235132256303316992

I hold no truck with anti-vaxers who are the lowest of the low but to be fair in 2004 the MMR bullshit was being taken seriously by far too many otherwise intelligent people and Andrew Wakefield was still being taken seriously as a doctor.

It was only in November 2004 that Dispatches revealed the extent of Wakefield's fraud and he was only struck off by the GMC 6 years after that.

So someone gullible enough to fall for Wakefield's bullshit (as even the Lancet had done!) earlier in 2004 isn't remotely as comprehensively stupid as someone who believes it in 2020.

Wakefield's infamous paper linking MMR with autism, and the accompanying press conference, occurred in 1998. Even if you didn't know he was an actual fraud in 2004, the scientific consensus against his 'findings' was massive by that time. Unfortunately, too many uniformed journalists presented him as a Galileo figure up until, and even beyond, his exposure as a crook.

Indeed I 100% agree. But the GMC was still accepting him as a Doctor, the Lancet only retracted the findings in 2004 (I don't know whether that was before or after the 2004 article quoted) etc

It was silly but somewhat understandable to believe Doctor Wakefield in 2004 (especially before the Lancet retracted his findings that year).

It is stupid beyond all belief to believe the fraudulent struck off Andrew Wakefield in 2020.

Yes but everyone knows scientists are all lying lefties, as seen in Climategate and revealed by retired Tory politicians and right-leaning columnists.

I know you're being sarcastic but I don't believe that, I'm firmly pro-science.

And my point is if one of those columnists you refer to is criticising anti-vaxxers today in 2020 then I 100% back that, even if they were gullible enough to fall for Andrew Wakefield's fraud before it was revealed to be fraud.

Being willing to acknowledge you were wrong in the past is a strength not a weakness.

And just because you might believe that climate change might be happening, doesn’t mean you have to endorse the shocking deceptions that climategate exposed.

what shocking deceptions?

Presumably the selective quoting absent all context in some of the reporting?

That was what I thought, but northernpowerhouse's wording implies something else

moonshine said:

Seems to me that the government’s advice since Monday has vindicated Eadric. Sure, they were a bit more sober but the underlying message was the same. Containment is nearing an end, a very big proportion of the population will end up catching the virus until herd immunity kicks in and on the best available data, this will cause a pretty unthinkable amount of critical care cases and deaths.

Interesting that the Singapore govt also gave a more negative message to its public today, telling them that the small handful of daily cases “may not be normal” and to expect a potentially significant increase, because they cannot close the country to foreign travellers indefinitely.

Meanwhile the Chinese ambassador to UN is talking in terms of “victory”...

The glimmer as I see it is that the mortality rate may be far lower and infection rate higher than they are supposing. The more I read of the symptoms, the more convinced I am that my family and I might have had it here in Sing. But none of us were tested because apart from my son who recovered quickly, we didn’t have a fever and hadn’t been to China. We were instead told to self isolate and I had to keep going back every 2-3 days for a progress check, since my symptoms were worst.

I now read that the newest data indicate that fever is only prevalent in 85% of cases. And potentially fewer, if having a fever has been a typical hurdle to meet before being tested. Yet I had pretty much every other symptom of mild infection. Chest pain, awful breathlessness, fatigue, persistent shallow cough, initial sore throat etc... But I’ll probably never know now.

The data from the Diamond Princess should give some encouragement too. A ship of old people and still only 6 deaths out of 705 cases. Sure, lots of cases remain unresolved but this is not at the 8-10% end of the spectrum one might expect given the probable demographics.

Bovine manure. The government's mature and measured advice has been the polar opposite of eadric's headless chicken routine.

brokenwheel said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

brokenwheel said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Buttigieg for Veep?

What demographic does he add? If he would win blue collar votes in the Midwest it may help, but that's not his base.

Biden's ideal pick would probably be a Latino woman. But absent any realistic chance of that he could go for Beto.

Same question: what does Beto add? My guess is when the veep pick is announced there will be a race to google the representative for the Great State of Wazoo. Bonus smart-arse points for those who remember which law exam that state featured in.
Spoiler: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.pdf

Hey, as I said the Dems don't have much to work with.

Beto has much more history working on the Latino vote, and could take charge of that push. Although in many ways he's a moderate, he's not totally hated by the Left. Also someone from outside the North/Northeast.

VP picks are rarely people who could overshadow the president.

The alternatives seem to bring less.

Biden has Black support so why pick Abrams? Besides she's trumpeted as a rising star, VP is not the ideal position to advance from.

Biden eats the Butt/Klob vote so no need for them.

Warren? Olive branch to the Left maybe, but she's ambitious and would not be controllable.

Abrams rising star might shine a whole lot brighter if the Pres keels over during the next four years (and not even dies - 25th Amendment territory).

I'd be quite chipper about my prospects if I were picked as Biden's VP.....

MarqueeMark said:

brokenwheel said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

brokenwheel said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Buttigieg for Veep?

What demographic does he add? If he would win blue collar votes in the Midwest it may help, but that's not his base.

Biden's ideal pick would probably be a Latino woman. But absent any realistic chance of that he could go for Beto.

Same question: what does Beto add? My guess is when the veep pick is announced there will be a race to google the representative for the Great State of Wazoo. Bonus smart-arse points for those who remember which law exam that state featured in.
Spoiler: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.pdf

Hey, as I said the Dems don't have much to work with.

Beto has much more history working on the Latino vote, and could take charge of that push. Although in many ways he's a moderate, he's not totally hated by the Left. Also someone from outside the North/Northeast.

VP picks are rarely people who could overshadow the president.

The alternatives seem to bring less.

Biden has Black support so why pick Abrams? Besides she's trumpeted as a rising star, VP is not the ideal position to advance from.

Biden eats the Butt/Klob vote so no need for them.

Warren? Olive branch to the Left maybe, but she's ambitious and would not be controllable.

Abrams rising star might shine a whole lot brighter if the Pres keels over during the next four years (and not even dies - 25th Amendment territory).

I'd be quite chipper about my prospects if I were picked as Biden's VP.....

If Trump fails to be re-elected he will be only the second first-term incumbent from his party seeking election to fail since the started of the 20th century. Trump, his general awfulness and coronavirus certainly make that possible - just as the Iran Hostage Crisis arguably made it possible for the only example Carter to lose.

So if the Democrats win this time (big if!) I'd make them very heavy odds on to win in 2024 and I can't see Biden running again in 2024 even if he makes it that far. So his Veep should be odds on favourite for next President from the day after Biden is elected if he is.

I wonder what the 538 forecast will say when they unfreeze it? They had Biden at 31% to win a majority before and he exceeded their model fairly clearly, so I reckon a 50-60% chance of a majority for him which firms up to more if national polling begins to give him clear leads.

Germany's figures have about a day of lag between states reporting and the Robert Koch institute doing so. Up to 300 now.

Monkeys said:

Mysticrose said:

Monkeys said:

kinabalu said:

Disappointed it's not going to be Bernie. Biden will doubtless beat Trump - which let's face it is the main thing - but IMO Bernie would have done so too. President Sanders could have been iconic and the necessary game-changer for a country so wealthy and powerful yet with such deeply offensive levels of poverty and inequality. Change is coming - but not quite yet.

That said, Biden is OK. And compared to the individual he will replace he is the Second Coming. So, yes, I'm totally behind him now. Whatever it takes, including the right medication. C'mon Joe!

Biden won't beat Trump. .

Coronavirus is the game-changer here, otherwise I'd agree.

And, no, Sanders wouldn't win. He would be utterly pulverised in the US election. For Americans he's 1000x worse than Corbyn. Not because of terrorist sympathies or anti-semitism but the worst 'S' crime of them all. Socialist.

I reckon coronavirus is anti-immigration hence pro-Trump. Dems win 2024 and they can put healthcare in then. I agree it's being handled terribly though.

It’s tourism rather than immigration That’s the key spreader at the moment particularly from Italy. The next biggest spreader is going to be large events like football matches. To be honest I don’t know why they don’t just suspend them for two months. Costly yes but far better being in front of the game. The same should happen with the Fallas, Semana Santa parades and similar events.

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

Amazingly Clinton is now in to 40/1

That’s absolutely barmy.

A decrepit Biden is going to be the Democrat candidate. That is also absolutely barmy.

He appears to be promising cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

https://twitter.com/mooncult/status/1235063098928590848?s=21

While it's not his strongest point, if you needed to be a smooth public speaker who never made rash promises to be elected then Trump wouldn't be sitting in the White House.

IshmaelZ said:

moonshine said:

Seems to me that the government’s advice since Monday has vindicated Eadric. Sure, they were a bit more sober but the underlying message was the same. Containment is nearing an end, a very big proportion of the population will end up catching the virus until herd immunity kicks in and on the best available data, this will cause a pretty unthinkable amount of critical care cases and deaths.

Interesting that the Singapore govt also gave a more negative message to its public today, telling them that the small handful of daily cases “may not be normal” and to expect a potentially significant increase, because they cannot close the country to foreign travellers indefinitely.

Meanwhile the Chinese ambassador to UN is talking in terms of “victory”...

The glimmer as I see it is that the mortality rate may be far lower and infection rate higher than they are supposing. The more I read of the symptoms, the more convinced I am that my family and I might have had it here in Sing. But none of us were tested because apart from my son who recovered quickly, we didn’t have a fever and hadn’t been to China. We were instead told to self isolate and I had to keep going back every 2-3 days for a progress check, since my symptoms were worst.

I now read that the newest data indicate that fever is only prevalent in 85% of cases. And potentially fewer, if having a fever has been a typical hurdle to meet before being tested. Yet I had pretty much every other symptom of mild infection. Chest pain, awful breathlessness, fatigue, persistent shallow cough, initial sore throat etc... But I’ll probably never know now.

The data from the Diamond Princess should give some encouragement too. A ship of old people and still only 6 deaths out of 705 cases. Sure, lots of cases remain unresolved but this is not at the 8-10% end of the spectrum one might expect given the probable demographics.

Worldometer says 36 Diamond P cases are serious or critical. If half of those die (seems conservative) that's a CFR of 3.4%. As you say, how encouraging that looks depends on average age of patient. I don't know how true the perception is that they were all in their 80s.

Not seen many pictures of cruise ships where more than a handful looked under 80

malcolmg said:

IshmaelZ said:

moonshine said:

Seems to me that the government’s advice since Monday has vindicated Eadric. Sure, they were a bit more sober but the underlying message was the same. Containment is nearing an end, a very big proportion of the population will end up catching the virus until herd immunity kicks in and on the best available data, this will cause a pretty unthinkable amount of critical care cases and deaths.

Interesting that the Singapore govt also gave a more negative message to its public today, telling them that the small handful of daily cases “may not be normal” and to expect a potentially significant increase, because they cannot close the country to foreign travellers indefinitely.

Meanwhile the Chinese ambassador to UN is talking in terms of “victory”...

The glimmer as I see it is that the mortality rate may be far lower and infection rate higher than they are supposing. The more I read of the symptoms, the more convinced I am that my family and I might have had it here in Sing. But none of us were tested because apart from my son who recovered quickly, we didn’t have a fever and hadn’t been to China. We were instead told to self isolate and I had to keep going back every 2-3 days for a progress check, since my symptoms were worst.

I now read that the newest data indicate that fever is only prevalent in 85% of cases. And potentially fewer, if having a fever has been a typical hurdle to meet before being tested. Yet I had pretty much every other symptom of mild infection. Chest pain, awful breathlessness, fatigue, persistent shallow cough, initial sore throat etc... But I’ll probably never know now.

The data from the Diamond Princess should give some encouragement too. A ship of old people and still only 6 deaths out of 705 cases. Sure, lots of cases remain unresolved but this is not at the 8-10% end of the spectrum one might expect given the probable demographics.

Worldometer says 36 Diamond P cases are serious or critical. If half of those die (seems conservative) that's a CFR of 3.4%. As you say, how encouraging that looks depends on average age of patient. I don't know how true the perception is that they were all in their 80s.

Not seen many pictures of cruise ships where more than a handful looked under 80

Average age of cruise passenger is around 46 apparently as discussed yesterday but not all cruises are like the Diamond P which attracts an older market.

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

Amazingly Clinton is now in to 40/1

That’s absolutely barmy.

A decrepit Biden is going to be the Democrat candidate. That is also absolutely barmy.

He appears to be promising cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

https://twitter.com/mooncult/status/1235063098928590848?s=21

Not without precedence. Obama promised a cure for cancer in his State of the Union which was itself what Sam Seaborne wanted Jed Bartlett to do in the West Wing.