The challenge for Trump is that white voters are now significantly less likely to support him than a
Options
Comments
-
Bottom line is, our PM is now seen as such a proven liar that people won’t believe anything he says until there is cross-referenced proof.0
-
1
-
Yes you can. Boris held a well reported meeting with the whole parliamentary tory party at the time he was supposed to have left. 2 secs search on twitter and there is numerous photos of him on the zoom call from the cabinet office. Also loads of journalists were live tweeting what was going on, so they either had access or MPs were telling them, so very easy to ask where was Boris when he did this.IanB2 said:
But they did. There was the airport press release seeking plaudits for having seen both Blair and Johnson through their airport in recent weeks, and the airport employee who was positive he had seen Johnson recently but wasn’t sure quite when.FrancisUrquhart said:
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
As further circumstantial evidence you have:
- the recorded flights of private jets both from and to the UK at around the relevant times;
- the recorded delay of the Monday flight from Perugia to Northoldt, coupled with the reported fact that Boris’s scheduled engagements with Patel for later that morning were cancelled at very short notice
- the strange difficulty Boris had in maintaining his WiFi connection on the Frids6 evening
Even if it’s all nonsense, you can’t blame journalist for piecing all these bits together.
Next day, well reported his kid gets baptised. Can't be hard to find some somebody who was there and ask the venue.
Monday, front page of evening standard, photo of boris coming out of no 10 early doors.
But of course they didn't check.0 -
Well he would say that wouldn't he?!Scott_xP said:
Anyone want to make a price that he never had Covid and Carrie was never pregnant?
0 -
Yes the government is probably right to slam on the brakes, but at the same time there are a lot of easy wins such as closing the border to red list countries that we're not doing for some reason. A policy of separating people who test positive for 10-14 days in government accomodation would probably make a huge difference in bringing down the R.FF43 said:
Number hospitalised has doubled in a week, as has ICU occupancy.MaxPB said:
4368 cases, 11 deaths, 204 hospital admissions in England, 1411 people hospitalised across all 4 nations.FrancisUrquhart said:Whats the scores on the doors today? My web browser is saying the numbers have been updated the dashboard but like yesterday only showing yesterday s.
0 -
Wasn't the story at the time that a lot of countries knew they didn't have the health service to cope, so locked down early. Just a few weeks makes a huge difference, and gives you smaller numbers to work with, and more focus to prepare for opening up.FF43 said:I am curious to know why countries like Slovakia and Greece have done so well on Covid. Nearly one hundredth of the UK and Swedish death rate for Slovakia and one twentieth for Greece.
0 -
Damn. Ok, I concede the argument.OnlyLivingBoy said:To all those opposed to tighter restrictions at the national level: Chris Grayling apparently agrees with you and so it is now a mathematical certainty that you are wrong.
3 -
My strong sense is that total lockdowns are the wrong strategy given that they treat groups with hugely divergent risk profiles identically, and are disastrous for the economy and non-covid strands of healthcare provision.Andy_Cooke said:
My sense is that they haven't understood the Swedish model. Stratified regulations would be totally at variance with it.Anabobazina said:
My strong sense is that those who argue for lighter or stratified regulations are much less fearful of the virus than those who advocate for heavier lockdowns.Andy_Cooke said:
I strongly suspect it's because the core driver is simply:FF43 said:
People don't like death. I wish we had gone with the German approach too. Not obvious why the country with 13th worst Covid death rate in the world should be the role model for the one with the 9th worst (5th and 3rd in Europe respectively). At least Germany comes in at a more respectable 50 positionrcs1000 said:
The funny bit, of course, is that in opinion polls in Sweden, people wish the government had gone with the German approach.Andy_JS said:"Sweden has exposed the cruel folly of lockdown
Sweden’s strategy was subjected to a global smear campaign, but now it’s showing results.
Fraser Myers"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/21/sweden-has-exposed-the-cruel-folly-of-lockdown/
"I don't want this to be a thing."
Restrictions are a pain. The pandemic is scary. Both of those are only true if the pandemic is true and restrictions are needed. If there's any way to believe that these are not true, then people would like to take it.
We can rationalise anything. "Sweden" has become a magic word, which means "Restrictions aren't needed." You have to gloss over the restrictions involved in the Swedish setup, or any differences between countries that mean that the exact level of restrictions in one country might not be appropriate for another, and the death toll and economic impact sustained in Sweden. But that's easy to do.
Just dont discuss it. Find an echo-chamber where like-minded people will pick at anything they think might not fit, or reinforce rationalisation, or repeat that "Sweden means no restrictions and it works."
You do get some people who accept the differences and discuss that. The principle of "adopt a level of restrictions and stick to it" has some merit. It's just not what most of the "Sweden!" people believe is true.
And it is scary. It is a massive imposition. And if you don't grasp exponential growth and its danger, you can focus on extrapolating lines or denying that there's a problem at all. As the old question goes: If a patch of lily pads doubles in size every day, and takes 48 days to cover an entire pond, how many days does it take to cover half the pond?
If you don't instantly answer "47," you haven't got a grasp of exponential growth. "Hey, the current hospitalisation rate is fine, what's the problem with it going into exponential growth?" is such a staggering question when you've grasped exponential growth that it's hard to answer without swearing - but you get the Hannans and co asking it as a rhetorical question (meaning "Duh, there's obviously no problem, why are the scientists so stupid?"), and being retweeted energetically by more people falling for the fallacy "If many people say it, it must be true," who desperately want it to be true.
I'll bet if all of those on here who cite "Sweden" were to say what level of restrictions they favour, few would answer "Higher than we had here for the past month and a half - and don't lift them further again."
Despite that being the actual Swedish model (a level of restrictions that works - unlike the past six or seven weeks - and hold it there).
And I'm personally not very fearful of the virus. Oh, I wouldn't like to catch it - there's a chance of Long Covid, and of hospitalisation, but I've been a lot more scared of a lot of other things in my time. I do, however, grasp exponential growth pretty well, as well as the economic impact involved.
I think your strong sense has led you astray - found an answer that you feel is right. Have you considered there might be other reasons?
The evidence is clear that covid is a pronounced risk for the old, the obese and the infirm. And that it is a small risk for the young, the fit and the healthy.
Therefore we should examine public policy responses that accommodate that and segment by risk.
I didn't mention Sweden, you did.0 -
Ah, May last year, rather than last May. Makes sense now. (Or would you refer to May 2020 as "this May"?)HYUFD said:
8,886 councillors were up for election last year when most English district and unitary councils had elections, many will not have elections next year.SandyRentool said:
Did they all resign or pass away? We had no elections last May.HYUFD said:
The Tories lost 1,330 councillors last Maynichomar said:
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.BluestBlue said:
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?Cicero said:
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour PartySandpit said:
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?HYUFD said:
If you live in London you did not have elections last year but you would have been the minority0 -
Do you never give up your tedious re tweetingScott_xP said:1 -
We should also pay more attention to Russia (in all seriousness). They briefly had quite draconian restrictions which were then significantly relaxed and they seem to have achieved a fairly steady rate of new infections in the mid thousands.FF43 said:I am curious to know why countries like Slovakia and Greece have done so well on Covid. Nearly one hundredth of the UK and Swedish death rate for Slovakia and one twentieth for Greece.
0 -
Then they called No.10, were told the story was rubbish and doubled down on it.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
Interesting that the one dissenter in the Lobby was Harry Cole. Previously a ‘very close friend’ of Carrie, I understand.0 -
Unlikely, as the airport gave the specific times he arrived and departed, whereas the employee who saw him was really vagueRobD said:
And the primary source for the press release? Probably that same employee.IanB2 said:
But they did. There was the airport press release seeking plaudits for having seen both Blair and Johnson through their airport in recent weeks, and the airport employee who was positive he had seen Johnson recently but wasn’t sure quite when.FrancisUrquhart said:
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/13080349551262228480 -
Could easily be the case. Employee says the saw Johnson arrive recently, then they looked for the last flight from where the PM usually comes from.IanB2 said:
Unlikely, as the airport gave the specific times he arrived and departed, whereas the employee who saw him was really vagueRobD said:
And the primary source for the press release? Probably that same employee.IanB2 said:
But they did. There was the airport press release seeking plaudits for having seen both Blair and Johnson through their airport in recent weeks, and the airport employee who was positive he had seen Johnson recently but wasn’t sure quite when.FrancisUrquhart said:
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/13080349551262228480 -
CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1308065380569616385?s=20</blockquo
If we get to France's level then we would be looking at an average of fifty deaths a day. That is what they are getting. Why wouldn;t we get the same?
No wonder Whitless and Vallance didn't want to take questions....0 -
Guardian needs some unconscious bias training me thinks...
https://twitter.com/paulrubens/status/1307819639284674560?s=191 -
I don't pretend to be a statistician but surely this is geometric growth, not exponential? If it was exponential would the curve not get progressively steeper?CarlottaVance said:2 -
As I said, this all follows from the undeniable fact that our PM is seen as a habitual liar.FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes you can. Boris held a well reported meeting with the whole parliamentary tory party at the time he was supposed to have left. 2 secs search on twitter and there is numerous photos of him on the zoom call from the cabinet office. Also loads of journalists were live tweeting what was going on, so they either had access or MPs were telling them, so very easy to ask where was Boris when he did this.IanB2 said:
But they did. There was the airport press release seeking plaudits for having seen both Blair and Johnson through their airport in recent weeks, and the airport employee who was positive he had seen Johnson recently but wasn’t sure quite when.FrancisUrquhart said:
First rule of journalism make sure you have multiple sources, which you have checked the vericity of, before you report it.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
As further circumstantial evidence you have:
- the recorded flights of private jets both from and to the UK at around the relevant times;
- the recorded delay of the Monday flight from Perugia to Northoldt, coupled with the reported fact that Boris’s scheduled engagements with Patel for later that morning were cancelled at very short notice
- the strange difficulty Boris had in maintaining his WiFi connection on the Frids6 evening
Even if it’s all nonsense, you can’t blame journalist for piecing all these bits together.
Next day, well reported his kid gets baptised. Can't be hard to find some somebody who was there and ask the venue.
Monday, front page of evening standard, photo of boris coming out of no 10 early doors.
But of course they didn't check.
Things would be worse if the journalists knew of some other damaging story about the PM that they are unable to report. Just as well that they don’t.0 -
Yes. I criticise news organisations when they print other bits of nonsense without any degree of sense checking, so it's only fair to criticise them now for not applying a minimal level of fact-checking for this story.MaxPB said:
Maybe asking an MP or two? Loads of them had a meeting with him when he was supposedly in Italy. Not rush to publish something that seems highly unlikely just because they wanted it to be true.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
What's the point of them otherwise?4 -
Johnson is such a liar that the fact he has denied it means that there must be a strictly greater than zero chance it is true. I don't think you can call the story damaging. In fact I am sure that the only people who have noticed the story at all are political obsessives, all of whom will already have a firm view on our PM and his character. I think that in pursuing the story and establishing the likely truth of the matter the press were doing exactly what they are there for.RobD said:
"As seems likely". You think there's still a chance the claim that he travelled was true? Just shows how damaging stories like this can be.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I expect that any major news story featuring his airport would be brought to his attention, it's standard practice in the private sector to monitor all news coverage of your business.RobD said:
You actually believe that the manager would take an interest in Johnson's trip to Italy when he was Foreign Minister because it was linked to Lebedev? Not only taken an interest, but remember that story several years later?OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
I don't really care either way. I'm just trying to understand how they erroneously claimed that Johnson had recently used their airport, since it's quite a strange claim to have made if, as seems likely, it was untrue. Especially as their offered explanation is obviously made up.2 -
Agreed. 100%Anabobazina said:
My strong sense is that total lockdowns are the wrong strategy given that they treat groups with hugely divergent risk profiles identically, and are disastrous for the economy and non-covid strands of healthcare provision.Andy_Cooke said:
My sense is that they haven't understood the Swedish model. Stratified regulations would be totally at variance with it.Anabobazina said:
My strong sense is that those who argue for lighter or stratified regulations are much less fearful of the virus than those who advocate for heavier lockdowns.Andy_Cooke said:
I strongly suspect it's because the core driver is simply:FF43 said:
People don't like death. I wish we had gone with the German approach too. Not obvious why the country with 13th worst Covid death rate in the world should be the role model for the one with the 9th worst (5th and 3rd in Europe respectively). At least Germany comes in at a more respectable 50 positionrcs1000 said:
The funny bit, of course, is that in opinion polls in Sweden, people wish the government had gone with the German approach.Andy_JS said:"Sweden has exposed the cruel folly of lockdown
Sweden’s strategy was subjected to a global smear campaign, but now it’s showing results.
Fraser Myers"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/21/sweden-has-exposed-the-cruel-folly-of-lockdown/
"I don't want this to be a thing."
Restrictions are a pain. The pandemic is scary. Both of those are only true if the pandemic is true and restrictions are needed. If there's any way to believe that these are not true, then people would like to take it.
We can rationalise anything. "Sweden" has become a magic word, which means "Restrictions aren't needed." You have to gloss over the restrictions involved in the Swedish setup, or any differences between countries that mean that the exact level of restrictions in one country might not be appropriate for another, and the death toll and economic impact sustained in Sweden. But that's easy to do.
Just dont discuss it. Find an echo-chamber where like-minded people will pick at anything they think might not fit, or reinforce rationalisation, or repeat that "Sweden means no restrictions and it works."
You do get some people who accept the differences and discuss that. The principle of "adopt a level of restrictions and stick to it" has some merit. It's just not what most of the "Sweden!" people believe is true.
And it is scary. It is a massive imposition. And if you don't grasp exponential growth and its danger, you can focus on extrapolating lines or denying that there's a problem at all. As the old question goes: If a patch of lily pads doubles in size every day, and takes 48 days to cover an entire pond, how many days does it take to cover half the pond?
If you don't instantly answer "47," you haven't got a grasp of exponential growth. "Hey, the current hospitalisation rate is fine, what's the problem with it going into exponential growth?" is such a staggering question when you've grasped exponential growth that it's hard to answer without swearing - but you get the Hannans and co asking it as a rhetorical question (meaning "Duh, there's obviously no problem, why are the scientists so stupid?"), and being retweeted energetically by more people falling for the fallacy "If many people say it, it must be true," who desperately want it to be true.
I'll bet if all of those on here who cite "Sweden" were to say what level of restrictions they favour, few would answer "Higher than we had here for the past month and a half - and don't lift them further again."
Despite that being the actual Swedish model (a level of restrictions that works - unlike the past six or seven weeks - and hold it there).
And I'm personally not very fearful of the virus. Oh, I wouldn't like to catch it - there's a chance of Long Covid, and of hospitalisation, but I've been a lot more scared of a lot of other things in my time. I do, however, grasp exponential growth pretty well, as well as the economic impact involved.
I think your strong sense has led you astray - found an answer that you feel is right. Have you considered there might be other reasons?
The evidence is clear that covid is a pronounced risk for the old, the obese and the infirm. And that it is a small risk for the young, the fit and the healthy.
Therefore we should examine public policy responses that accommodate that and segment by risk.
I didn't mention Sweden, you did.1 -
RubbishHorseBattery reporting for duty0
-
And why you need a log scale for exponential growthDavidL said:
I don't pretend to be a statistician but surely this is geometric growth, not exponential? If it was exponential would the curve not get progressively steeper?CarlottaVance said:1 -
But Monday is your day off.CorrectHorseBattery said:RubbishHorseBattery reporting for duty
3 -
If the EU hadn't abandoned some its poorer members during the financial crash they wouldn't be so vulnerable to influence by malignant foreign powers.CarlottaVance said:Lots of Ru$$ian money in Cyprus?
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1308062767748915202?s=201 -
@contrarian
You missed a trick there – you could have gone for Whitless and Sir Patrick Imbalance, if you are fond of comedy contrived nicknames (CCNs).
P.S. My favourite CCN of all time remains David Chameleon.0 -
You do realise that every time you complain like that, you repost the tweet ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you never give up your tedious re tweetingScott_xP said:2 -
Of course but in this case it is a fair critiqueNigelb said:
You do realise that every time you complain like that, you repost the tweet ?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Do you never give up your tedious re tweetingScott_xP said:0 -
The BBC have sent a journalist from Rome to check this story out...FFS.CorrectHorseBattery said:
It is literally the same level of story as every transfer window some superstar footballer is "spotted by an airport employee" at some regional airport and always turns out to be bollocks.2 -
I suppose there is a public interest in journalists being gullible suckers?FrancisUrquhart said:
The BBC have sent a journalist from Rome to check this story out...FFS.CorrectHorseBattery said:3 -
Other papers took a different approach, filling the article about their ‘undesirable’ publisher rival who Boris was there to see.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8753857/Downing-Street-forced-deny-Italian-newspapers-claims-Boris-Johnson-enjoyed-jaunt-Perugia.html0 -
My money is still on Boris being a time-travelling transvestite ... you know it makes sense!isam said:
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/8044207076020142081 -
Well if you read that filth what do you expect? 😉Sandpit said:
Other papers took a different approach, filling the article about their ‘undesirable’ publisher rival who Boris was there to see.OnlyLivingBoy said:
The only report I read was a Guardian one quoting the airport press release and subsequent confirmation and also the denial from Johnson's spokesperson. It didn't offer a view as to the veracity of the story. I don't know what you expect them to have done. Should the press simply refuse to print any claims made by a third party about any politician if the politician in question denies them? I expect Jack Profumo would have preferred your approach.MaxPB said:
And our lobby journalists who were ready to believe absolutely anything despite all common sense suggesting the story was bullshit. They can't wait to publish anything damaging about the government or Boris without basic fact checking.OnlyLivingBoy said:
If it was his airport he might. The whole story is very odd. I don't think it is unreasonable for the press to have initially taken the press release at face value and to have asked the PM's people questions about it - that is the kind of thing that the press are there for. The manager of an airport is not some random person on the internet whose statement can be dismissed out of hand. Now it seems that the press release was incorrect, although there isn't a credible explanation for how they got it so wrong. I don't think it reflects badly on anyone except perhaps the airport manager and/or their PR people.RobD said:
Do you really think a manager of a regional airport in Italy will remember or even care about stories like that?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Yes I am not denying it was an error just that the explanation for it is patently a load of bollocks. Perhaps an early draft mentioned that Johnson has used the airport in the past (the infamous trip to the Lebedev shindig while FM I think) and then someone unfamiliar with the timeline sexed it up for the final draft.RobD said:
Saving face for a cockup behind the scenes? What we do know is there are photos of Johnson in No. 10 at the time he was supposedly in Italy.OnlyLivingBoy said:
It's an interesting explanation for the error as the original press release mentioned both Blair and Johnson.RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8753857/Downing-Street-forced-deny-Italian-newspapers-claims-Boris-Johnson-enjoyed-jaunt-Perugia.html1 -
FrancisUrquhart said:
Guardian needs some unconscious bias training me thinks...
https://twitter.com/paulrubens/status/1307819639284674560?s=19
Well it's perfectly possible to be an ethnic Jew who was brought up as a religious Jew and then denounce one's own Judaism. Sure, she will still be ethnically Jewish but she is allowed to be an atheist Jew, isn't she?
I'm not saying she was an atheist, simply that it's possible for her to abandon religion while remaining ethically Jewish.2 -
Unfortunately the main lesson from Russia is that authoritarian dictatorships lie to their public during public health emergencies.williamglenn said:
We should also pay more attention to Russia (in all seriousness). They briefly had quite draconian restrictions which were then significantly relaxed and they seem to have achieved a fairly steady rate of new infections in the mid thousands.FF43 said:I am curious to know why countries like Slovakia and Greece have done so well on Covid. Nearly one hundredth of the UK and Swedish death rate for Slovakia and one twentieth for Greece.
See also: Iran, China.0 -
Which that graph doesn't have. So why did Whitty and Vallance produce a chart based upon exponential growth?FrancisUrquhart said:
And why you need a log scale for exponential growthDavidL said:
I don't pretend to be a statistician but surely this is geometric growth, not exponential? If it was exponential would the curve not get progressively steeper?CarlottaVance said:
If it wasn't for Chris Grayling I'd think I was on to something.0 -
I suspect there are public health policy reasons why some countries have done better than others. It's not simply down to cultural or environmental differences. We're seeing neighbours with quite different outcomes. Your suggestion may well be the critical factor.nova said:
Wasn't the story at the time that a lot of countries knew they didn't have the health service to cope, so locked down early. Just a few weeks makes a huge difference, and gives you smaller numbers to work with, and more focus to prepare for opening up.FF43 said:I am curious to know why countries like Slovakia and Greece have done so well on Covid. Nearly one hundredth of the UK and Swedish death rate for Slovakia and one twentieth for Greece.
0 -
Arlene Foster extends measures across the whole of Northern Ireland, confirms talks today with Boris and she will attend Cobra meeting tomorrow am0
-
This May was from 2019SandyRentool said:
Ah, May last year, rather than last May. Makes sense now. (Or would you refer to May 2020 as "this May"?)HYUFD said:
8,886 councillors were up for election last year when most English district and unitary councils had elections, many will not have elections next year.SandyRentool said:
Did they all resign or pass away? We had no elections last May.HYUFD said:
The Tories lost 1,330 councillors last Maynichomar said:
No but the world will be better with hundreds less Tory councillors.BluestBlue said:
In the same way that Jo Swinson 'could well be' Prime Minister right now?Cicero said:
Well, the hard right, corporatist, populist anti-conservatives currently using the old Conservative Party barnd could well be getting a real kicking next spring from both the Liberal Democratic Lib Dems and the Social Democratic Labour PartySandpit said:
Ooh, are we going to end up with a party that’s liberal and democratic?HYUFD said:
If you live in London you did not have elections last year but you would have been the minority
2 -
So, to put this to bed, does anyone have a link to some credible third party who definitely saw Johnson in the UK that weekend? Given the number of claimed engagements he had, there must be someone?0
-
https://twitter.com/Anshul__K/status/1308035214871080961?s=20DavidL said:
Which that graph doesn't have. So why did Whitty and Vallance produce a chart based upon exponential growth?FrancisUrquhart said:
And why you need a log scale for exponential growthDavidL said:
I don't pretend to be a statistician but surely this is geometric growth, not exponential? If it was exponential would the curve not get progressively steeper?CarlottaVance said:
If it wasn't for Chris Grayling I'd think I was on to something.1 -
As far as most of the world is concerned, Boris Johson is trying - but failing - to imitate Tony Blair.JohnLilburne said:
Impersonating Boris JohnsonFrancisUrquhart said:
Sooooooo.....what was Tony Blair doing there then ;-)RobD said:That settles it then. People really do swallow stories without any critical thinking these days.
https://twitter.com/NickSquires1/status/1308034955126222848
It was the same for Brown, Cameron & May. Most folks around the globe were either vaguely aware of their existence OR (blissfully) unaware. Whereas just about anyone with a TV (or radio) and a brain recognized Blair as a world leader.
So no wonder some folks from Perugia to Pago Pago still think TB is the "real" Prime Minister.
Love him or not (that's me) Blair towers above the puppies over-promoted in his absence. And Bojo AIN"T the pick of the litter.0 -
Because it would have looked very different from the France and Spain graphs, and everybody would be able to see it...??DavidL said:
Which that graph doesn't have. So why did Whitty and Vallance produce a chart based upon exponential growth?FrancisUrquhart said:
And why you need a log scale for exponential growthDavidL said:
I don't pretend to be a statistician but surely this is geometric growth, not exponential? If it was exponential would the curve not get progressively steeper?CarlottaVance said:
If it wasn't for Chris Grayling I'd think I was on to something.0 -
RubbishIanB2 said:
But Monday is your day off.CorrectHorseBattery said:RubbishHorseBattery reporting for duty
0 -
-
CorrectHorseBattery said:
RubbishIanB2 said:
But Monday is your day off.CorrectHorseBattery said:RubbishHorseBattery reporting for duty
Maybe it was Tuesday?CorrectHorseBattery said:
RubbishIanB2 said:
But Monday is your day off.CorrectHorseBattery said:RubbishHorseBattery reporting for duty
The Working Time Directive still applies in the UK, at least until December.0 -
The bins never go out hereIanB2 said:CorrectHorseBattery said:
RubbishIanB2 said:
But Monday is your day off.CorrectHorseBattery said:RubbishHorseBattery reporting for duty
Maybe it was Tuesday?CorrectHorseBattery said:
RubbishIanB2 said:
But Monday is your day off.CorrectHorseBattery said:RubbishHorseBattery reporting for duty
The Working Time Directive still applies in the UK, at least until December.0 -
So we're now supposed to think that the fact that Spain and France are having some success in keeping down the rate of re-infection by imposing stricter controls is evidence that Whitty and Vallance are shysters and that we don't need to impose stricter controls?
Err...6 -
-
10PM curfew on pubs1
-
Back to how it was in the 80s?HYUFD said:
1 -
If true that would be a very impressive corset.BluestBlue said:
My money is still on Boris being a time-travelling transvestite ... you know it makes sense!isam said:
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/8044207076020142080 -
Bit bemused by that as pubs round my way close at 11 anyway0
-
So that just means people will go earlier....HYUFD said:0 -
Lockdown anecdote klaxon: youngest daughter's primary school sent out questionnaire on pupils' ability to access online teaching, for "contingency planning" purposes...0
-
Maybe so, although the throughput will be slightly lower due to capacity, another area they are trying to focus on.FrancisUrquhart said:
So that just means people will go earlier....HYUFD said:0 -
They are failing at keeping down the case rate. Failing completely. Cases have soared.Richard_Nabavi said:So we're now supposed to think that the fact that Spain and France are having some success in keeping down the rate of re-infection by imposing stricter controls is evidence that Whitty and Vallance are shysters and that we don't need to impose stricter controls?
Err...
But there are comparatively few hospitalisations and deaths. The case to death relationship is completely different from the first wave.
Now that's partly due to increased testing, of course, but you have to query the numbers when France and Spain's deaths are not really moving up that much, even after a number of weeks.0 -
It is a perfect example of why risk segmentation is not some magic cure all.williamglenn said:A novel approach to risk segmentation.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/13080591323233894421 -
10 pm pub curfew. Hmm.0
-
So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.0 -
They've gone up by a factor of five to ten. I would hardly call that "not really moving".contrarian said:
They are failing at keeping down the case rate. Failing completely. Cases have soared.Richard_Nabavi said:So we're now supposed to think that the fact that Spain and France are having some success in keeping down the rate of re-infection by imposing stricter controls is evidence that Whitty and Vallance are shysters and that we don't need to impose stricter controls?
Err...
But there are comparatively few hospitalisations and deaths. The case to death relationship is completely different from the first wave.
Now that's partly due to increased testing, of course, but you have to query the numbers when France and Spain's deaths are not really moving up that much, even after a number of weeks.0 -
Tbh, neither country has done anything drastic. The Madrid full lockdown has yet to go into effect. The rule of 6 is probably more stringent than most of what has been proposed for France in any case.Richard_Nabavi said:So we're now supposed to think that the fact that Spain and France are having some success in keeping down the rate of re-infection by imposing stricter controls is evidence that Whitty and Vallance are shysters and that we don't need to impose stricter controls?
Err...0 -
I have not been to a pub in decades so can you tell me when closing time usually isPulpstar said:10 pm pub curfew. Hmm.
0 -
But Who Was The Pilot!RobD said:0 -
As it's written that should only affect parents with 4 kids or more (Or 5 if a single grandparent is looking after them). If it's strictly for childcare reasons.Alistair said:
It is a perfect example of why risk segmentation is not some magic cure all.williamglenn said:A novel approach to risk segmentation.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/13080591323233894420 -
The boffins were talking about a doubling every nine days, not 17. Without doing the maths I think that'll put you a lot closer to 50k.DavidL said:So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.0 -
No, if neither Spain nor France have suffered exponential growth and we haven't to date either, they need to explain why they think we will in the future. I know that they said that this was not a forecast etc but it was misleading (unless my maths is even further off than usual, which is possible).Richard_Nabavi said:So we're now supposed to think that the fact that Spain and France are having some success in keeping down the rate of re-infection by imposing stricter controls is evidence that Whitty and Vallance are shysters and that we don't need to impose stricter controls?
Err...0 -
So what was announced this morning? Genuinely, I was up in the mountains and missed it.0
-
It is a fascinating article. I was most interested to find that it seems some people do give different responses depending on whether they are addressing a person or a computer. It was pleasantly reassuring however to note that this had no significant effect on headline voting intentions, despite a small volume of 'churn' in the underlying details.HYUFD said:
If you had looked at the research you would have seen that Trump does 10% better with rich voters online than by phone and rich voters have the highest turnout. That was the key finding.rcs1000 said:
I don't know what evidence you have for 'The sample likely leaned Democrat', but that wasn't why Anathingymebob posted it.HYUFD said:
Their latest released poll has Biden +8% and it seems was by phoneAnabobazina said:HYUFD said:
The only group which changed from one candidate leading by phone to the other leading online was rich voters who went from Biden leading by phone to Trump leading online.Anabobazina said:
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.Alistair said:
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.HYUFD said:
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.HYUFD said:
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.Anabobazina said:There's another interesting polling paper out today – the Morning Consult survey of Shy Trumptons.
Interestingly, it found Shy Trumptons on the margins in higher income groups and Shy Bidenites on the margins in lower income groups.
https://morningconsult.com/form/shy-trump-2020/
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
The overall numbers were Biden +10 in online polling and +12 in phone polling according to their own graphs.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-presidential-election-tracker/
The sample likely leaned Democrat for the survey comparing online and phone figures so the headline number is less significant than the basis of the research ie there are a lot of rich, high turnout voters who are shy Trump voters but can only be identified in online polls not phone polls
The point is that when there is shy voter syndrome (like with Brexit) there is often a big gap between phone and on-line polls. People are more likely to admit their true views to a computer than to a nice young lady.
That there is no big difference between phone and on-line with Morning Consult (or indeed other pollsters) indicates that while there may be a shy Trump (or shy Biden) effect, it is not likely to be large.
Biden did 6% better with poor voters online than by phone but they have much lower turnout anyway, there was only a 1% difference for both candidates with middle income voters online compared to by phone
I retain a small suspicion that there may be a modest 'Shy-Trumper' adjustment necessary in my evaluation of the polls and the odds, but am happy now that the impact will be minimal, negligle even.
Biden remains in my estimation one of the best 4/5 chances ever to approach the starting stalls.1 -
As for your example, the geometric growth would be massively faster than the exponential growth during the first twenty or thirty days. If you were comparing the two you'd hardly see the exponential one moving since all the action occurs right at the end.DavidL said:So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.1 -
BBC News - FinCEN Files: Roman Abramovich had secret stakes in rival players
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-542292690 -
At the start of all this I predicted that a section of people would act like Millennium Bug Deniers on Steroids.Richard_Nabavi said:So we're now supposed to think that the fact that Spain and France are having some success in keeping down the rate of re-infection by imposing stricter controls is evidence that Whitty and Vallance are shysters and that we don't need to impose stricter controls?
Err...4 -
Did anyone suggest it was a "magic cure all"? If you have any better ideas, please advance them here.Alistair said:
It is a perfect example of why risk segmentation is not some magic cure all.williamglenn said:A novel approach to risk segmentation.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1308059132323389442
By the way, these grandparent exemptions are rather misconceived if our aim is to protect the vulnerable.
If that is not our aim, and in fact our aim is just to react to public opinion and make life as normal as possible, they make perfect sense.0 -
In other good news pillar 4 testing looks to be back to full capacity, I'm guessing some was diverted a few days ago but now it's back to normal. We need to expand the monitoring to ensure we know where the virus is in the country.0
-
I suspect that is the case for several PBers!!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have not been to a pub in decadesPulpstar said:10 pm pub curfew. Hmm.
0 -
Wow this is a big move...
BBC News - Microsoft buys Fallout creator Bethesda for $7.5bn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/542332351 -
Lowry Theatre in Salford to host 3 temporary real life courtrooms
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-542367690 -
To be fair I have never been much of a drinkerAnabobazina said:
I suspect that is the case for several PBers!!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I have not been to a pub in decadesPulpstar said:10 pm pub curfew. Hmm.
0 -
If you have exponential growth. They are saying that in the period of 27 days the number of cases per day would have doubled, doubled again and then doubled again getting them to 49k or so. But if that has not been our experience to date, nor France's, nor Spain's...RobD said:
The boffins were talking about a doubling every nine days, not 17. Without doing the maths I think that'll put you a lot closer to 50k.DavidL said:So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.0 -
With all the issues around testing and case numbers, I'm personally going off of hospitalisation numbers. It's rather lagged in comparison, but we're not arguing about test capacity, who should be getting them, are there false positives, or whatever.DavidL said:So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.
And, at the end of the day, that's what we should be worrying about.
I want back and looked at the doubling period for the seven-day-smoothed average.
From the past 10 days of figures (9th to 18th of September), how long had it taken for the seven-day average to double?
9th September: 14 days (double what it was on the 26th of August)
10th September: 12 days (double what it was on the 29th of August)
11th September: 9 days (double what it was on the 2nd of September)
12th September: 8 days
13th September; 8 days
14th September: 8 days
15th September: 8 days
16th September: 8.5 days
17th September: 8.5 days
18th September: 9 days.
I'm hoping the acceleration has stabilised and maybe even dropped, but it's still looking more exponential than geometrical. Although I think the doubling period is a day or two longer than Whitty and co said (but they're explaining a worst-case scenario they want to avoid).
I'd like to see that doubling period extend a bit more - essentially, we may have dropped from an exponential growth rate of +9% per day to +8% per day after climbing there from +5% per day when it started rising again.
4 -
-
Pubs to close at 10 pm nationally according to Sun.
Edit see we've covered that.
No change up here then.0 -
It depends when the growth really started, doesn't it? It seems as though community infection rates were static for weeks, and have only started to go up in the last week or two.DavidL said:
If you have exponential growth. They are saying that in the period of 27 days the number of cases per day would have doubled, doubled again and then doubled again getting them to 49k or so. But if that has not been our experience to date, nor France's, nor Spain's...RobD said:
The boffins were talking about a doubling every nine days, not 17. Without doing the maths I think that'll put you a lot closer to 50k.DavidL said:So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.0 -
Shocked I tell you, shocked...the collective idiocy of european countries to allow summer vacations after such strict rules over travel was shear madness.CarlottaVance said:twitter.com/margheritamvs/status/1308069527901679617?s=20
2 -
I forgot that was even a thing.Scott_xP said:twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1308077975565479941
0 -
Indeed.DavidL said:
If you have exponential growth. They are saying that in the period of 27 days the number of cases per day would have doubled, doubled again and then doubled again getting them to 49k or so. But if that has not been our experience to date, nor France's, nor Spain's...RobD said:
The boffins were talking about a doubling every nine days, not 17. Without doing the maths I think that'll put you a lot closer to 50k.DavidL said:So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.
so they in fact showed us the graphs of what happened in France and Spain, and then said 'of course what we expect to happen in Britain is totally different, and we are not going to tell you why.
0 -
2
-
Deaths
Cases
Hey look, even as cases go up Deaths go down. Everything is fine
Oh
0 -
Looks like a huge play for the subscription model. To my mind MS will stop selling Xbox hardware in the next few years and offer cloud gaming and native PC gaming. Being a hardware player precludes Xcloud coming to the number one platform, I think they'll decide it's better to serve PS5 players with Xcloud than have their own hardware business.FrancisUrquhart said:Wow this is a big move...
BBC News - Microsoft buys Fallout creator Bethesda for $7.5bn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/542332350 -
UK cases - by specimen date, scaled to 100K population
0 -
Just as a matter of interest, do you think there are more poor people or rich people in the US?HYUFD said:
If you had looked at the research you would have seen that Trump does 10% better with rich voters online than by phone and rich voters have the highest turnout. That was the key finding.rcs1000 said:
I don't know what evidence you have for 'The sample likely leaned Democrat', but that wasn't why Anathingymebob posted it.HYUFD said:
Their latest released poll has Biden +8% and it seems was by phoneAnabobazina said:HYUFD said:
The only group which changed from one candidate leading by phone to the other leading online was rich voters who went from Biden leading by phone to Trump leading online.Anabobazina said:
Overall the poll found more Shy Bidenites than Shy Trumptons, although the difference wasn't statistically significant.Alistair said:
Which could be significant given historically they vote at a higher rate than the poor.HYUFD said:
Interestingly Biden leads voters earning over $75k a year 58% to 42% by phone but Trump leads them by 52% to 48% online. There is only a 1% difference though for middle income voters with Biden narrowly leading them by phone or online. Amongst voters earning under $35k Biden leads comfortably both by phone or online though his share falls from 67% to 61% online.HYUFD said:
No surprise, if you live in Manhattan or Malibu you are going to be far more quiet about being a Trump supporter than if you live in West Virginia or Alabama and the reverse for Bidenites.Anabobazina said:There's another interesting polling paper out today – the Morning Consult survey of Shy Trumptons.
Interestingly, it found Shy Trumptons on the margins in higher income groups and Shy Bidenites on the margins in lower income groups.
https://morningconsult.com/form/shy-trump-2020/
Same here if you are rich and living in Oxford or Richmond Park you are likely to keep quiet about having voted for Brexit and Boris whereas if you live in Stoke or Grimsby you will proclaim your support for Brexit and Boris without question and vice versa
So it seems shy Trump backers are really found now amongst rich voters
It would be darkly hilarious of Biden gets big swings with the HS or less crowd but their turnout falls allowing the rich shy trumpets to swing the election.
However, differences between income groups did not reach statistical significance. When taken together, differences between subgroups did not change the overall finding that President Donald Trump lagged behind Joe Biden by 10 percentage points in both online and phone interviews.
There was barely any difference with middle income voters and a slight improvement for Biden online with the poor but as Alistair correctly stated the poor vote less than the rich, nationally there is a big divergence with Trump ahead by 1% with Rasmussen to polls with Biden 10%+ ahead
The overall numbers were Biden +10 in online polling and +12 in phone polling according to their own graphs.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-presidential-election-tracker/
The sample likely leaned Democrat for the survey comparing online and phone figures so the headline number is less significant than the basis of the research ie there are a lot of rich, high turnout voters who are shy Trump voters but can only be identified in online polls not phone polls
The point is that when there is shy voter syndrome (like with Brexit) there is often a big gap between phone and on-line polls. People are more likely to admit their true views to a computer than to a nice young lady.
That there is no big difference between phone and on-line with Morning Consult (or indeed other pollsters) indicates that while there may be a shy Trump (or shy Biden) effect, it is not likely to be large.
Biden did 6% better with poor voters online than by phone but they have much lower turnout anyway, there was only a 1% difference for both candidates with middle income voters online compared to by phone0 -
UK cases - by specimen date
0 -
These are tiny numbers compared with the number of new cases and a different data base from that used by the CMO and CSO but would it be possible to put these figures on a logarithmic scale so we can see whether the line is flat or bending upwards?Andy_Cooke said:
With all the issues around testing and case numbers, I'm personally going off of hospitalisation numbers. It's rather lagged in comparison, but we're not arguing about test capacity, who should be getting them, are there false positives, or whatever.DavidL said:So, and please correct me if I am wrong, using @Andy_JS 's excellent lily pad example if it takes 48 days to cover the pond then on exponential growth half of the pond was covered in 47 days. On geometric growth it would be at 24 days?
And if it took us 17 days to go from 2k to 4k cases a day in another 28 days we will be at 7.3k (2000 x28/17 +4) cases rather than 50K.
As I say, happy to be corrected.
And, at the end of the day, that's what we should be worrying about.
I want back and looked at the doubling period for the seven-day-smoothed average.
From the past 10 days of figures (9th to 18th of September), how long had it taken for the seven-day average to double?
9th September: 14 days (double what it was on the 26th of August)
10th September: 12 days (double what it was on the 29th of August)
11th September: 9 days (double what it was on the 2nd of September)
12th September: 8 days
13th September; 8 days
14th September: 8 days
15th September: 8 days
16th September: 8.5 days
17th September: 8.5 days
18th September: 9 days.
I'm hoping the acceleration has stabilised and maybe even dropped, but it's still looking more exponential than geometrical. Although I think the doubling period is a day or two longer than Whitty and co said (but they're explaining a worst-case scenario they want to avoid).
I'd like to see that doubling period extend a bit more - essentially, we may have dropped from an exponential growth rate of +9% per day to +8% per day after climbing there from +5% per day when it started rising again.0 -
UK Case summaries
0 -
UK deaths
0 -
I know your a big fan of xbox ;-), but the subscription offer for buying series.x is very attractive. £30 a month for 2 years and you get the console, xbox game pass ultimate subscription and ea play subscription....seems it is trying to get everybody hooked on just paying £30 a month for your games entertainment.MaxPB said:
Looks like a huge play for the subscription model. To my mind MS will stop selling Xbox hardware in the next few years and offer cloud gaming and native PC gaming. Being a hardware player precludes Xcloud coming to the number one platform, I think they'll decide it's better to serve PS5 players with Xcloud than have their own hardware business.FrancisUrquhart said:Wow this is a big move...
BBC News - Microsoft buys Fallout creator Bethesda for $7.5bn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/542332350
This discussion has been closed.