Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/iain_w_anderson/status/1290186497656672261

Interesting: looks like Maine and Nebraska split their EC vote rather than being winner takes all.

Yes, they both give two EC votes to statewide election (to match their number of Senators), and one EC vote per congressional district (to match their number of Representatives).

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

An interesting and relevant read about Land Value Taxation and the possibility of Sunak toying with it:

https://unherd.com/2020/08/its-time-the-tories-got-tough-on-landlords/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.

In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.

They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.

"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?

Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.

Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.

About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.

Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.

Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.

I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

TimT said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.

In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.

But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.

Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.

I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.

There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.

It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.

Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.

Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.

Question for PB's Foreign Correspondents; how are other (dare one say, better run) health systems responding to this question? Unfortunately, I can see a chain which goes UK running Covid control relatively hot --> a bit less general medical capacity and a bit more fear --> other illnesses bubbling up as well.

This is a global problem with all acute health crises. We saw exactly the same with Ebola in West Africa - treatments of everything else, particularly other fever-inducing infections such as HIV and malaria, suffered considerably until the Ebola outbreak was over.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.

In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.

They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.

"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?

Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.

Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.

About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.

Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.

Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.

I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.

Some very scary stuff in there but not all slam dunk reasons to be in A&E to someone sitting across the room, I presume?

IanB2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TimT said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TimT said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

MaxPB said:

Had a long chat with a cousin yesterday at a family picnic, he's a very high up at a major London trust. He basically said that the NHS is currently operating at 10-20% in London depending on the specific trust and he thinks people are going to die because the government pushed the messaging of "save the NHS" too hard early on and are still doing it which is putting people off from getting care for potentially life-threatening conditions. On the virus itself, he said his hospital and the surrounding ones haven't had a new case in about two weeks and the number of active cases are fairly small and confined to a single ward with no crossover in staffing and they are thinking of consolidating all existing London cases at a single trust and declaring the rest of the hospitals COVID-free to encourage patients to come back.

He also said there is no sign of a second wave in terms of hospital admissions for them and they haven't picked up any additional suspected cases in their A&E. He's definitely of the opinion that the government needs to rethink the whole strategy of sacrificing all public health initiatives at the altar of the virus, especially now that we haven't got the same hospital caseload as before and there is spare capacity.

I had a course of treatment postponed by the lockdown, but they phoned my at the beginning of June to go and get it finished. The hospital seemed pretty empty, but I go in at aside entrance to get to the ward I need so it was hard to compare. I also get the impression that they are prioritising cancer treatment.

I've had a surgeon's office call me about a small, non-urgent procedure that was postponed from March. I think in the US, surgeons are eager to get more work as patients are not so keen to go to hospitals even now elective procedures are permitted.

I’ve picked up a few hospital acquired infections in my time (although usually from what I would call invasive procedures) so I can certainly understand why people are avoiding hospitals unless they absolutely have to go.

Nosocomial infections kill around 100k in the US per year ...

I had pneumonia last year and it was described as “community acquired”: that is they have a special category for those illnesses not picked up in hospital...

I was told by one senior medical type, that a major reason behind the modern emphasis on getting people out of hospital quickly, is the risk of picking up infections.

And the realisation that most patients recover faster if they are pushed back toward normal activity rather than the old assumption of bed rest. And straightforward economics, of course.

I understand it is a mixture of all three. The one about not picking up other infections is not often emphasised though.

TimT said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

Malmesbury said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TimT said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TimT said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

MaxPB said:

Had a long chat with a cousin yesterday at a family picnic, he's a very high up at a major London trust. He basically said that the NHS is currently operating at 10-20% in London depending on the specific trust and he thinks people are going to die because the government pushed the messaging of "save the NHS" too hard early on and are still doing it which is putting people off from getting care for potentially life-threatening conditions. On the virus itself, he said his hospital and the surrounding ones haven't had a new case in about two weeks and the number of active cases are fairly small and confined to a single ward with no crossover in staffing and they are thinking of consolidating all existing London cases at a single trust and declaring the rest of the hospitals COVID-free to encourage patients to come back.

He also said there is no sign of a second wave in terms of hospital admissions for them and they haven't picked up any additional suspected cases in their A&E. He's definitely of the opinion that the government needs to rethink the whole strategy of sacrificing all public health initiatives at the altar of the virus, especially now that we haven't got the same hospital caseload as before and there is spare capacity.

I had a course of treatment postponed by the lockdown, but they phoned my at the beginning of June to go and get it finished. The hospital seemed pretty empty, but I go in at aside entrance to get to the ward I need so it was hard to compare. I also get the impression that they are prioritising cancer treatment.

I've had a surgeon's office call me about a small, non-urgent procedure that was postponed from March. I think in the US, surgeons are eager to get more work as patients are not so keen to go to hospitals even now elective procedures are permitted.

I’ve picked up a few hospital acquired infections in my time (although usually from what I would call invasive procedures) so I can certainly understand why people are avoiding hospitals unless they absolutely have to go.

Nosocomial infections kill around 100k in the US per year ...

I had pneumonia last year and it was described as “community acquired”: that is they have a special category for those illnesses not picked up in hospital...

I was told by one senior medical type, that a major reason behind the modern emphasis on getting people out of hospital quickly, is the risk of picking up infections.

Operations are now often done as day cases. I have spent fewer nights in hospital than I have had general anaesthetics.

In the US, many (most?) operations are not done in hospitals, but in surgery centres - so walk in, walk out same day.

Two of my day case tests under GA turned into ops and I ended up staying the night on a ward (indeed the right ward for my particular problem). How easy is that from a surgery center?

Ouch.

DW Sports chain collapse threatens 1,700 jobs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53635211

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.

In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.

They were looking at you thinking exactly the same thing.

"Often felt" - how many times have you been to A&E?

Four times in the past decade. All pregnancy/child related.

Once my wife was very pregnant, she fell over on black ice hitting her stomach and couldn't feel the baby kick afterwards. We called her midwife and were told to go immediately to A&E. We were asked questions on arrival including could she feel the baby kick ("No") and we then sat there for just under 4 hours. When the doctor finally came to speak to us the triage nurse had incorrectly written yes to the baby kicking on the notes. Eventually got taken through and they found a fetal heartbeat.

About two years later as a toddler our daughter fell down the stairs tumbling from the top to the bottom of the stairs. We took her immediately to A&E, were advised to go straight to a children's unit and were seen immediately by a paediatrician. She was OK.

Third time our daughter while climbing on the couch jumped off it and hit her head which immediately swelled up. Called 111 and told to go to A&E because it was a head injury. Waited about six hours, she got a check up and was OK.

Finally our second daughter accidentally dislocated her hand/wrist. Took her to A&E, waited about five hours. Doctor "popped" it back in and she was OK.

I've had colleagues in the past who'd go in fortnightly to monthly it seemed.

Some very scary stuff in there but not all slam dunk reasons to be in A&E to someone sitting across the room, I presume?

No, but when I was there the first time when she couldn't feel the baby kick I was sat near the entrance desk so could hear the reasons given on arrival and many to me did not seem to be either accidents or emergencies, never was the patient told "go home and call your GP" which seemed like it would be the appropriate answer.

But as I said my thinking doesn't just extend to how often I have been to A&E personally, but knowing how often some other people do go. One particular hypochondriac I used to work with seemed to go every other week to monthly, which seemed to coincide with when she was hungover.

Can work the other way though. A couple of years back I had chest pains, which I was fairly sure were heartburn but as they were persistent and annoying so I called the GP and asked for an appointment.

I was told, to my astonishment, that the correct course of action for any chest pain was to dial 999.

I persuaded the receptionist that it was not necessary to do that, and the doctor confirmed it was heartburn which cleared up with prescription drugs in a week.

geoffw said:

Re Inter-country comparisons of excess deaths, I haven't seen any mention here of the EuroMoMo (= European Mortality Monitor) data which you can find here:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.

But we all LOVE THE NHS, remember?

Think of a healthcare system like you think of a religion, and it becomes infallible.

Sandpit said:

geoffw said:

Re Inter-country comparisons of excess deaths, I haven't seen any mention here of the EuroMoMo (= European Mortality Monitor) data which you can find here:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.

But we all LOVE THE NHS, remember?

Think of a healthcare system like you think of a religion, and it becomes infallible.

It is of course the envy of the world. So much so that no other country has dared to emulate it.

Sandpit said:

geoffw said:

Re Inter-country comparisons of excess deaths, I haven't seen any mention here of the EuroMoMo (= European Mortality Monitor) data which you can find here:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
They show excess deaths weekly over the last 5 years, presenting breakdowns by country and age using a "Z-score" (they explain), and they disaggregate the UK into component nations. It is quite remarkable how much the European countries differ, and regrettably England is the second worst performer. Spain is the worst. Some countries hardly show a blip of any kind, even for their older cohorts.

But we all LOVE THE NHS, remember?

Think of a healthcare system like you think of a religion, and it becomes infallible.

Tbf England has two religions, though they seem to be coalescing.

https://twitter.com/mynnoj/status/1289630694830989312?s=20

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1290281666729013249

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1290261913864044544

Lol Goodwin's been found out

The general point on that Twitter thread about data transparency driving better government is interesting.

Simply the issue of "Where is the data for x" can tell you a lot - asking for it hard enough can trigger changes throughout a system.

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1290281666729013249

F*** All new about that , it has been planned for ages , dates have been there for ages , what tossers these unionists are, and he is among the top dummies.

I thought you liked him?

Oh sorry, you mean Paul Hutcheon not ALex Salmond.

Perhaps the meetings will be "not proven" ?

MaxPB said:

TimT said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.

In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.

But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.

Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.

I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.

There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.

It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.

Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.

Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.

This would be helped a lot if Covid could be moved to a defined set of hospitals whose mission was to deal with Covid.

It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.

As I've said before, I think we need:
- An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid
- Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals
- New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again

undefined

malcolmg said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1290281666729013249

F*** All new about that , it has been planned for ages , dates have been there for ages , what tossers these unionists are, and he is among the top dummies.
The interesting thing is the unionist UK led civil service have not been able to provide their documentation in 4 months and are trying to delay yet again. Someone trying to keep their job a bit longer perhaps or the shredders being repaired.

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1290282628042678279?s=19

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220481786732550?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220473490571264?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290227999770632195?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290228005420163072?s=20

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

TimT said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.

In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.

But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.

Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.

I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.

There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.

It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.

Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.

Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.

This would be helped a lot if Covid could be moved to a defined set of hospitals whose mission was to deal with Covid.

It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.

As I've said before, I think we need:
- An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid
- Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals
- New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again

Who's going to go in these Covid hospitals? Is England now not averaging less than 1 patient in hospital per hospital?

.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220481786732550?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220473490571264?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290227999770632195?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290228005420163072?s=20

Wait, I thought the UK was full of racists?

A good article on the problem of whom to vaccinate first:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/08/02/debate-begins-for-whos-first-in-line-for-covid-19-vaccine/24579884/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKJOVBd2O6q_cgnekFH8ZaxvRz37F5qo4sMmKD8-GzWCFB3mffnT8lYErbK9ajMym3Z-6UZF4p0TVjJl8pWaSGQLeU4Ej8vxo1O4zyrSfu3DtasEOCcDSUO5i0NkbhTa9IL2xtNNQQONDiaFfrbXYB9Rytss_nt024iacnP63kRN

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1290271435475177473

So, virtually no one is dying now.

Time to get some perspective on wild plans for more coming lockdowns?

IT's how many are dying in 3-4 weeks that is the question.

And nobody was dying when the virus first boomed.

So on that basis the govt at any time is able to declare that "normal" life can never resume. Should it choose to.

AIUI they weren't actual plans, we are told, but scenarios being explored, as to what might turn out to happen ans what might have to be done at T plus delta T if an infection begins. And quite rightly. And a good thing if this have finally got the concept of exponential growth into the heads of the (often) mathematically and scientifically illiterate politicians.

In all seriousness, though, the time lag between new infections and deaths makes it dodgy to use the latter as a benchmark guide to the current pandemic situation.

Edit: and it's quite possible for deaths to be going down and new infections to go up at the same time.

Edsit 2: and see Malmesbury's excellent post a few moments ago.

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Ouch.

DW Sports chain collapse threatens 1,700 jobs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53635211

That's my gym. In fairness they haven't been taking money during lockdown but you have to wonder how many of them will reopen now. My guess in Scotland (where gyms are still not permitted) the answer will be only under new ownership.

Gyms have been given a target opening date of 15 September, I believe - my local one is working to that.

Edit: 14 Sept.

RobD said:

.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220481786732550?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220473490571264?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290227999770632195?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290228005420163072?s=20

Wait, I thought the UK was full of racists?

We are. But some other countries are worse (or am I being racist by saying that?)

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@ydoethur http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/constituencies/uk-parliament/plymouth-moor-view interesting.

Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?

I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.

I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.

Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.

Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.

I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.

I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.

Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.

I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1290271435475177473

So, virtually no one is dying now.

Time to get some perspective on wild plans for more coming lockdowns?

IT's how many are dying in 3-4 weeks that is the question.

And nobody was dying when the virus first boomed.

So on that basis the govt at any time is able to declare that "normal" life can never resume. Should it choose to.

AIUI they weren't actual plans

My understanding, based on a fair amount of close observation, is that this government isn't capable of making actual plans.

That did rather worry me too - what would they pick out of the pile when something did happen?

malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.

Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.

Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.

They aren't.

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Ouch.

DW Sports chain collapse threatens 1,700 jobs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53635211

That's my gym. In fairness they haven't been taking money during lockdown but you have to wonder how many of them will reopen now. My guess in Scotland (where gyms are still not permitted) the answer will be only under new ownership.

Gyms have been given a target opening date of 15 September, I believe - my local one is working to that.

Edit: 14 Sept.

Too little, too late. The jobs are gone.

RobD said:

.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220481786732550?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290220473490571264?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290227999770632195?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1290228005420163072?s=20

Wait, I thought the UK was full of racists?

Note the question was actually FINANCIAL help.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Bury North: Leave

Kensington: Remain

Bury South: Leave

Bolton North East: Leave

Swing of 0.43% required to win all of these. Despite the most unpopular Labour leader in history and Brexit, they only lost narrowly.

Emma Dent Coad was certainly the straw that broke the camel's back in Kensington. If they'd had someone with 10% more decency Labour would have kept the seat.

Interesting that Lithuania sees the USA as more important than the EU still. But not surprising. Further European integration of the armed forces to form a bulwark against Vlad the bad might change that calculation, but till then the USA is essentially the de facto global force dissuading invasion.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.

Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.

Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.

Kamala Harris: 1.86
Susan Rice: 6.6
Karen Bass: 10
Tammy Duckworth: 11
Elizabeth Warren: 18.5
Michelle Obama: 25
Gretchen Whitmer: 36
Val Demings: 38
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Hillary Clinton: 95
Condoleezza Rice: 510
Stacey Abrams: 540
Gina Raimondo: 550
Oprah Winfrey: 550
Barack Obama: 590
Terri Sewell: 700
Amy Klobuchar: 730
Mitt Romney: 810
Catherine Cortez Masto: 830
Tammy Baldwin: 940
Maggie Hassan: 1000

USA Dem VP nominee. Karen Bass and Tammy Duckworth have switched places since this morning. Stacey Abrams has been nibbled at monster prices.

Kamala Harris: 1.93
Susan Rice: 6
Tammy Duckworth: 9.4
Karen Bass: 11.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 29
Val Demings: 29
Gretchen Whitmer: 34
Hillary Clinton: 100
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 160
Stacey Abrams: 200
Barack Obama: 300

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.

Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.

Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.

Kamala Harris: 1.86
Susan Rice: 6.6
Karen Bass: 10
Tammy Duckworth: 11
Elizabeth Warren: 18.5
Michelle Obama: 25
Gretchen Whitmer: 36
Val Demings: 38
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Hillary Clinton: 95
Condoleezza Rice: 510
Stacey Abrams: 540
Gina Raimondo: 550
Oprah Winfrey: 550
Barack Obama: 590
Terri Sewell: 700
Amy Klobuchar: 730
Mitt Romney: 810
Catherine Cortez Masto: 830
Tammy Baldwin: 940
Maggie Hassan: 1000

USA Dem VP nominee. Karen Bass and Tammy Duckworth have switched places since this morning. Stacey Abrams has been nibbled at monster prices.

Kamala Harris: 1.93
Susan Rice: 6
Tammy Duckworth: 9.4
Karen Bass: 11.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 29
Val Demings: 29
Gretchen Whitmer: 34
Hillary Clinton: 100
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 160
Stacey Abrams: 200
Barack Obama: 300

Missed this -- Tammy Baldwin backed off the boards and now even money on Betfair!!

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

TimT said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I wonder what proportion of the reduced attendance of hospitals is people who need to go to hospitals not going . . . and what proportion is hypochondriacs deciding they have something better to do.

In the past when I've waited in A&E I've often felt the majority of people there didn't really need to be there.

But it's not just A&E that's running at below capacity, it's everything including oncology.

Indeed, oncology being down is very worrying.

I'm not suggesting that all the decrease is non-worrying, but not all of the decrease is worrying either. Some of the decrease is people being more careful (or less driving or less drunk) and fewer accidents, some of it is fewer hypochondriacs going out . . . but much of it is what should be going on like oncology.

There should be an awareness campaign going on for cancer awareness. I think that's the biggest concern of them all.

It's not just cancer though, there's a whole host of routine procedures that are being put off or going undiagnosed because people don't want to go to hospital. The person with undiagnosed high cholesterol is at risk of a stroke, that's as serious as it gets.

Or even a stomach ulcer that goes untreated too long.

Exactly, cancer is just one of the serious health conditions currently going untreated or undetected because the government has sacrificed all other public health priorities for the virus. It's going to end very badly unless there is a serious rethink of policy.

This would be helped a lot if Covid could be moved to a defined set of hospitals whose mission was to deal with Covid.

It's not just a problem of treatment not being given to the vulnerable, I suspect there's also an issue of them not wanting to go and be treated in a hospital where there's a risk of Covid infection.

As I've said before, I think we need:
- An interim health sec so Matt Hancock can deal with Covid
- Matt Hancock deals with opening a new network of Covid hospitals
- New health sec aims to get the Covid-free NHS up and running again

Who's going to go in these Covid hospitals? Is England now not averaging less than 1 patient in hospital per hospital?

Well, if there really turned out to be no patients, I suppose they'd be turned into Covid immunisation centres or centres of excellence for contagious disease, or eventually returned to the mainstream NHS. But most seem to think we still need the capacity.

And with no patients, they might get the Florence Nightingale award for hygiene.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.

Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.

Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.

Kamala Harris: 1.86
Susan Rice: 6.6
Karen Bass: 10
Tammy Duckworth: 11
Elizabeth Warren: 18.5
Michelle Obama: 25
Gretchen Whitmer: 36
Val Demings: 38
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Hillary Clinton: 95
Condoleezza Rice: 510
Stacey Abrams: 540
Gina Raimondo: 550
Oprah Winfrey: 550
Barack Obama: 590
Terri Sewell: 700
Amy Klobuchar: 730
Mitt Romney: 810
Catherine Cortez Masto: 830
Tammy Baldwin: 940
Maggie Hassan: 1000

USA Dem VP nominee. Karen Bass and Tammy Duckworth have switched places since this morning. Stacey Abrams has been nibbled at monster prices.

Kamala Harris: 1.93
Susan Rice: 6
Tammy Duckworth: 9.4
Karen Bass: 11.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 29
Val Demings: 29
Gretchen Whitmer: 34
Hillary Clinton: 100
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 160
Stacey Abrams: 200
Barack Obama: 300

Biden has said he will pick a woman as his Vice Presidential running mate. Has NOT gone beyond that, speculation he will choose VP of color is just that -speculation.

Keep in mind there are MANY competing interest groups here within or closely adjacent to the Democratic Party and/or Biden campaign.

Including politicos in MANY states who might benefit IF one or another of the hopefuls in picked. For example IF that pick created a potential vacancy for US Senator or Governor.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting summaries I've posted from time to time.

Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.

Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.

Kamala Harris: 1.86
Susan Rice: 6.6
Karen Bass: 10
Tammy Duckworth: 11
Elizabeth Warren: 18.5
Michelle Obama: 25
Gretchen Whitmer: 36
Val Demings: 38
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Hillary Clinton: 95
Condoleezza Rice: 510
Stacey Abrams: 540
Gina Raimondo: 550
Oprah Winfrey: 550
Barack Obama: 590
Terri Sewell: 700
Amy Klobuchar: 730
Mitt Romney: 810
Catherine Cortez Masto: 830
Tammy Baldwin: 940
Maggie Hassan: 1000

USA Dem VP nominee. Karen Bass and Tammy Duckworth have switched places since this morning. Stacey Abrams has been nibbled at monster prices.

Kamala Harris: 1.93
Susan Rice: 6
Tammy Duckworth: 9.4
Karen Bass: 11.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 29
Val Demings: 29
Gretchen Whitmer: 34
Hillary Clinton: 100
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 160
Stacey Abrams: 200
Barack Obama: 300

Biden has said he will pick a woman as his Vice Presidential running mate. Has NOT gone beyond that, speculation he will choose VP of color is just that -speculation.

Keep in mind there are MANY competing interest groups here within or closely adjacent to the Democratic Party and/or Biden campaign.

Including politicos in MANY states who might benefit IF one or another of the hopefuls in picked. For example IF that pick created a potential vacancy for US Senator or Governor.

You can see why there is such a fight. Whoever wins is the de facto President from day one, and probably the actual president shortly after that.

Seeing some of the clips of Biden, it really is very sad.

My one regret in the VP market is not laying Gabbard for more when she was 12.5

contrarian said:

Malmesbury said:

contrarian said:

malmesbury's assertion that the ratio of positives is going up rests on week's data, the latest week, in a period that he himself has dubbed as provisional and therefore not to be used as an argument.

Strip that week out of the numbers and the proportionality trend has fallen and is stable.

Also, given the spike in numbers in the North West has been going up for a while now, if the data were reliable hospital admissions should be seriously rising. essentially the spike started 20 July.

They aren't.

The positives number is up to week 30 - which is at the end of July. We are in August.

The reason that hospital numbers haven't spiked is also explained by the profile of the cases - a much lower number of the very elderly are currently getting COVID. The problem is that this will change when the disease becomes more prevalent.

Nah....ripples....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8588249/This-NOT-second-wave-Mini-Covid-19-outbreaks-UK-just-ripples-epidemic.html?ito=push-notification&ci=26285&si=13855726

Tis' but a scratch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting

summaries I've posted from time to time.

Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.

Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.

Kamala Harris: 1.86
Susan Rice: 6.6
Karen Bass: 10
Tammy Duckworth: 11
Elizabeth Warren: 18.5
Michelle Obama: 25
Gretchen Whitmer: 36
Val Demings: 38
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Hillary Clinton: 95
Condoleezza Rice: 510
Stacey Abrams: 540
Gina Raimondo: 550
Oprah Winfrey: 550
Barack Obama: 590
Terri Sewell: 700
Amy Klobuchar: 730
Mitt Romney: 810
Catherine Cortez Masto: 830
Tammy Baldwin: 940
Maggie Hassan: 1000

USA Dem VP nominee. Karen Bass and Tammy Duckworth have switched places since this morning. Stacey Abrams has been nibbled at monster prices.

Kamala Harris: 1.93
Susan Rice: 6
Tammy Duckworth: 9.4
Karen Bass: 11.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 29
Val Demings: 29
Gretchen Whitmer: 34
Hillary Clinton: 100
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 160
Stacey Abrams: 200
Barack Obama: 300

Missed this -- Tammy Baldwin backed off the boards and now even money on Betfair!!

I wonder if someone got Tammy Baldwin mixed up with Duckworth.

ETA since Baldwin is still at three-figure prices with the books, I'm inclined to think someone (or someone's bot) has ballsed up badly on Betfair.

Sorry, this is a nonsense. Tammy Baldwin's low match price was 30.

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@ydoethur http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/constituencies/uk-parliament/plymouth-moor-view interesting.

Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?

I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.

I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.

Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.

Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.

I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.

I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.

Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.

I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.

If he rebrands as New Labour, he's completely buggered. The Left will explode and the Right will mock.

Something like Ordinary Labour would serve better, especially given the collection of weirdos he's going to be up against.

Classic Labour? Diet Labour? Labour Zero?

Theuniondivvie said:

The lad's hit the ground running. I'm sure extolling the important legislative role played by *checks notes* Evgeny Lebedev, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey, Digby Jones, Zac Goldsmith and BJ's less famous brother will be a real vote winner.

https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1290293547250270209?s=20

Is Digby Jones disqualified on any grounds other than that you don't like what he says? He was head of the CBI, I'm assuming he has some credentials.

Pulpstar said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

On-topic re Dem VP choice, the screen grab in the header from CBS News includes Maggie Hassan, available at 1000 on Betfair if you believe CBS that she is a live contender. That is longer than Barack (not Michelle) Obama, who falls down on the being a woman part. I've not been including her in any of the betting

summaries I've posted from time to time.

Elizabeth Warren is interesting. Though it has been said Biden will nominate a "woman of colour", I cannot trace that back to the man himself, who has said it will be a woman. This is not a tip, more a reflection on how opaque this apparently open process remains. My own sense from looking at the betting and reading American coverage from thousands of miles away, is that the first five in the betting remain under active consideration.

Here is a longer, though still not full, list from Betfair.

Kamala Harris: 1.86
Susan Rice: 6.6
Karen Bass: 10
Tammy Duckworth: 11
Elizabeth Warren: 18.5
Michelle Obama: 25
Gretchen Whitmer: 36
Val Demings: 38
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Hillary Clinton: 95
Condoleezza Rice: 510
Stacey Abrams: 540
Gina Raimondo: 550
Oprah Winfrey: 550
Barack Obama: 590
Terri Sewell: 700
Amy Klobuchar: 730
Mitt Romney: 810
Catherine Cortez Masto: 830
Tammy Baldwin: 940
Maggie Hassan: 1000

USA Dem VP nominee. Karen Bass and Tammy Duckworth have switched places since this morning. Stacey Abrams has been nibbled at monster prices.

Kamala Harris: 1.93
Susan Rice: 6
Tammy Duckworth: 9.4
Karen Bass: 11.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 29
Val Demings: 29
Gretchen Whitmer: 34
Hillary Clinton: 100
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 120
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 160
Stacey Abrams: 200
Barack Obama: 300

Missed this -- Tammy Baldwin backed off the boards and now even money on Betfair!!

I wonder if someone got Tammy Baldwin mixed up with Duckworth.

ETA since Baldwin is still at three-figure prices with the books, I'm inclined to think someone (or someone's bot) has ballsed up badly on Betfair.

Sorry, this is a nonsense. Tammy Baldwin's low match price was 30.

A few hours ago, Tammy Baldwin was available at 940. Now 2. Someone has taken everything. In the absence of any news, and since Duckworth has also been backed, my guess is someone mixed them up.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The lad's hit the ground running. I'm sure extolling the important legislative role played by *checks notes* Evgeny Lebedev, Claire Fox, Kate Hoey, Digby Jones, Zac Goldsmith and BJ's less famous brother will be a real vote winner.

https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1290293547250270209?s=20

Is Digby Jones disqualified on any grounds other than that you don't like what he says? He was head of the CBI, I'm assuming he has some credentials.

Disqualified for being a complete rectum, another useless bag of wind.

MarqueeMark said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

@ydoethur http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/constituencies/uk-parliament/plymouth-moor-view interesting.

Trending away since 2015, when the majority was only 1026. What has happened there?

I honestly don’t know! As I have demonstrated I thought it was marginal.

I would guess, but I could be completely wrong, that it’s where most of the Royal Navy have their shore homes, and that Corbyn’s pacifism didn’t play too well. Labour’s vote went down in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport as well, although not as catastrophically.

Labour’s vote absolutely cratered in Taunton Deane as well, and was down in Bath. Equally, however, it rose in Portsmouth South.

Well I think you would hope Labour might recover some then, with a leader who is not Corbyn.

I do think in these very marginal Brexit-voting seats, Corbyn was the factor that sealed the deal for many voters.

I would expect Starmer will win some back just by not being Corbyn.

Only when he convinces them Labour is no longer Labour. Thier brand is buggered. He needs to oversee a rebrand. New Labour, if you will.

I'm sure all its activists can get behind that idea.

I've become increasingly convinced that the brand is as you say buggered. Plenty of signs of that here on Teesside where the party name literally repels voters of the kind who would have voted for Blair in their droves. Its not just Corbyn its all the people associated with Corbyn and the anti-aspiration vibe. I don't think SKS can convincingly pull off a pro-prosperity vibe and even if he gives a decent impression of doing so there will be a significant chunk of the party ready to attack people for not having been 100% loyal.

NEW THREAD