politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Going postal: Could a Democrat victory end up lost in the post

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

kamski said:

Charles said:

Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)

Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.

What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.

Polling stations are the other prong of the attack.

Reduce polling station frequency in Dem wards, and restricting postal voting that could offset the first issue is heading down the Belarusian road.

Ignore counting votes cast in Dem areas and we have a full house.

Of course, plenty of people prefer postal voting (I do) but will vote in person if necessary. Something we don't know is whether Democrats will be so motivated that they'll either return their postal ballot almost instantly when they get them (as most postal voters in Britain do anyway) or vote in person no matter where the polling station is and how long the lines are. But the PA report that the post office isn't sure they can deliver even instantly-cast postal votes in time is pretty serious.

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

OK I'll bite. The case for Trump:
1) no more Neocon wars
2) he failed to repeal Obamacare
3) lower taxes for rich people
4) anti-China; not anti-Russia

The case against Biden:
1) he's past it
2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies

Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.

Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.

Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

OK I'll bite. The case for Trump:
1) no more Neocon wars
2) he failed to repeal Obamacare
3) lower taxes for rich people
4) anti-China; not anti-Russia

The case against Biden:
1) he's past it
2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies

Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.

Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.

Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals

Metimes HYUFD the Right aren't always right. Voter suppression by peaceful or violent means is certainly not right in a bone fide democracy.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

OK I'll bite. The case for Trump:
1) no more Neocon wars
2) he failed to repeal Obamacare
3) lower taxes for rich people
4) anti-China; not anti-Russia

The case against Biden:
1) he's past it
2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies

Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.

Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.

Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals

Metimes HYUFD the Right aren't always right. Voter suppression by peaceful or violent means is certainly not right in a bone fide democracy.

We can assess that after the election if it happens.

That does not change Trump's record in his first term though

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

kamski said:

Charles said:

Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)

Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.

What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.

Polling stations are the other prong of the attack.

Reduce polling station frequency in Dem wards, and restricting postal voting that could offset the first issue is heading down the Belarusian road.

Ignore counting votes cast in Dem areas and we have a full house.

Of course, plenty of people prefer postal voting (I do) but will vote in person if necessary. Something we don't know is whether Democrats will be so motivated that they'll either return their postal ballot almost instantly when they get them (as most postal voters in Britain do anyway) or vote in person no matter where the polling station is and how long the lines are. But the PA report that the post office isn't sure they can deliver even instantly-cast postal votes in time is pretty serious.

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

OK I'll bite. The case for Trump:
1) no more Neocon wars
2) he failed to repeal Obamacare
3) lower taxes for rich people
4) anti-China; not anti-Russia

The case against Biden:
1) he's past it
2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies

Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.

LostPassword said:

NickPalmer said:

Mexicanpete said:

kamski said:

Charles said:

Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)

Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.

What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.

Polling stations are the other prong of the attack.

Reduce polling station frequency in Dem wards, and restricting postal voting that could offset the first issue is heading down the Belarusian road.

Ignore counting votes cast in Dem areas and we have a full house.

Of course, plenty of people prefer postal voting (I do) but will vote in person if necessary. Something we don't know is whether Democrats will be so motivated that they'll either return their postal ballot almost instantly when they get them (as most postal voters in Britain do anyway) or vote in person no matter where the polling station is and how long the lines are. But the PA report that the post office isn't sure they can deliver even instantly-cast postal votes in time is pretty serious.

It's not just about motivation - if you reduce the number of polling places enough then there will be hard physical limits on the number of ballots that can be cast in a day. And while someone like you and I have the financial means and job security to take a day off work to vote - if that's what it takes - for many US voters in particular a long queue to vote leaves them with the choice of voting or losing their job. That doesn't really come down to a matter of motivation - that's such a condescending way to frame it.

And then, as I've warned in the past, a long queue of people waiting to vote is an obvious physical target for the heavily-armed extremists that Trump is busy convincing they have to defend the election from being stolen. The sorts of people who have already gone out to shoot at, or drive vehicles into, Black Matters Lives protests.

I think there's a lot of denial about how bad the situation already is, and how much worse it is going to become. And the worse thing is that I can see lots of comfortable people explaining it away after the event by talking about motivation, etc, so that they wouldn't have to face the terrifying reality - that Trump stole the election of the Presidency in the great democracy of the United States, and that all our democratic comforts are at risk.

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1294526190640914432

Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?

If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.

Fysics_Teacher said:

If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

NickPalmer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1294526190640914432

Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?

If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.

They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.

NickPalmer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1294526190640914432

Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?

If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.

They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1294526190640914432

Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?

If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.

They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.

The historical borders in that part of Europe have been incredibly fluid, with very significant amounts of migration between what we now regard as 'states'. Estonia and Latvia are probably the only countries with a significant proportion of people who regard themselves as 'ethnically' Estonian or Letts. Even Poland's borders have shifted enormously over time.

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

JohnLilburne said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

And the quarantine/no non-essential travel rules are against countries with significantly higher and/or rapidly increasing prevalence of the disease

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.

rottenborough said:

JohnLilburne said:

NickPalmer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1294526190640914432

Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?

If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.

They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.

Maybe Uncle Vova thinks Lukashenka's position is becoming untenable and that he would be able to control an inexperienced new government, plus some brownie points from those who aren't against him. Don't forget Ukraine needed two revolutions before they kicked out the Kremlin apologists. They might do it "better" this time round. And there is definitely a more even split between pro-Russians and pro-Europeans in Belarus, maybe the thought is that can be exploited to Russia's advantage. Belarus also has even less historical experience of statehood than Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/HannaLiubakova/status/1294563179662659584

rottenborough said:

JohnLilburne said:

NickPalmer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1294526190640914432

Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?

If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.

They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.

Maybe Uncle Vova thinks Lukashenka's position is becoming untenable and that he would be able to control an inexperienced new government, plus some brownie points from those who aren't against him. Don't forget Ukraine needed two revolutions before they kicked out the Kremlin apologists. They might do it "better" this time round. And there is definitely a more even split between pro-Russians and pro-Europeans in Belarus, maybe the thought is that can be exploited to Russia's advantage. Belarus also has even less historical experience of statehood than Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/HannaLiubakova/status/1294563179662659584

IshmaelZ said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

And it doesn't matter how. He has now got to the point where assassination would be morally and politically justified.

Stocky said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.

Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

And it doesn't matter how. He has now got to the point where assassination would be morally and politically justified.

A disturbing post.

Despite the morals of that (there aren't any) such a move would inflame divisions and tensions in the USA to the nth degree.

The country would never heal.

JohnLilburne said:

Stocky said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.

Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.

Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, Trump must go.

He is a scourge and undermining not only US democracy but the cause of democracy worldwide.

Casino_Royale said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November

Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.

I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.

rottenborough said:

Betting Post.

"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/15/everyone-thinks-trump-will-lose-except-stock-market/

Stocky said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.

Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November

Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.

I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.

Frank Lutz says it is women with children of school age who will be the decider in this election.

Shy Trumpsters?

BannedinnParis said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

My understanding was a lot of it came in from France, Spain, Italy in mid-late Feb to mid-March. I also understand we were expecting it from further afield. This all explains why it popped up almost everywhere in the UK in mid/late-March.

Indeed, there's a link elsewhere in the thread that supports this

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.

Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.

Perhaps with some there is a feeling that a disease caught in foreign parts and imported here is just that little bit worse than something homegrown.

British bugs for British people.

Stocky said:

rottenborough said:

Betting Post.

"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/15/everyone-thinks-trump-will-lose-except-stock-market/

And Helmut Norpoth - who merits attention - 91% chance of Trump win:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/donald-trump-chance-of-winning-election-2020-joe-biden-poll-model-a9609236.html

nichomar said:

slade said:

NickPalmer said:

Charles said:

Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)

Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.

I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.

Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.

This is not unusual. My town council is run by a group of independents. Despite the council being very wealthy they have decreed that by elections are too expensive and fill any vacancies by co-option.

They can’t do that by choice they can only do it if nobody asks for an election which requires ten signatures. If no candidates are nominated then again they can co-opt

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

rottenborough said:

Betting Post.

"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/15/everyone-thinks-trump-will-lose-except-stock-market/

And Helmut Norpoth - who merits attention - 91% chance of Trump win:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/donald-trump-chance-of-winning-election-2020-joe-biden-poll-model-a9609236.html

Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote

slade said:

nichomar said:

slade said:

NickPalmer said:

Charles said:

Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)

Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.

I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.

Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.

This is not unusual. My town council is run by a group of independents. Despite the council being very wealthy they have decreed that by elections are too expensive and fill any vacancies by co-option.

They can’t do that by choice they can only do it if nobody asks for an election which requires ten signatures. If no candidates are nominated then again they can co-opt

We tried this. The Lib Dems asked for a by-election, the Independents put out a leaflet highlighting the costs of the election and won handsomely.

felix said:

Stocky said:

JohnLilburne said:

Stocky said:

Malmesbury said:

Stocky said:

nichomar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Fishing said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

MaxPB said:

Fishing said:

nichomar said:

Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.

It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.

No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.

Evidence?

You may be disgreeing about different things.

Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.

Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.

I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.

But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.

This https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507

By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.

Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?

What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.

I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.

Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.

Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.

Yes, I get all that. The point is that new infections that holidaymakers bring in will be less in number than the new infections that would happen if they have stayed at home! - IF the infection rate where they visited is lower than in their own community at home.

Up to a point Lord Copper. The very act of travelling - trains, airports, planes, buses, coaches aligned with a range of typical holiday activiites in bars, restaurants , beaches you can go on adinfinitum creates a much bigger range of infection possibilities than staying home. Variation in infection rates can be a help but not if you catch it on the bus to the airport, spread it in your hotel and on the plane for the return journey and then on to family and friends. Holidays at all and especially abroad should really have been a no no this year.

kinabalu said:

WhisperingOracle said:

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stocky said:

Jonathan said:

Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.

Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.

Bad times.

"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.

Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.

Trump has to go. It`s crucial.

It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November

Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.

I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.

Frank Lutz says it is women with children of school age who will be the decider in this election.

Shy Trumpsters?

That Unreported World really is an essential programme to watch, on the themes of polarisation and the absence of cultural centre ground. These women appeared to believe every aspect of their right to live as traditional women was being taken away, even as many minorities in the US instinctively feel this is a life-or-death election for them and their democracy.

Mrs America.

Fysics_Teacher said:

This looks like good news:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/15/uk-firms-solar-power-breakthrough-could-make-worlds-most-efficient-panels-by-2021

rottenborough said:

Why do we keep doing this in UK? Another major asset about to leave. There'll be no HQ guarantees with Nividia.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/nividia-buy-chipmaker-arm-a4524761.html

CorrectHorseBattery said:

What is HYUFD's (does it stand for something?) record like?