Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Biden’s national poll lead remains and the swing state surveys are looking positive – politicalbetti

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 23 in General
Biden’s national poll lead remains and the swing state surveys are looking positive – politicalbetting.com

Latest WH2020 national polling trend chart from @FiveThirtyEight pic.twitter.com/VIQPQIBTRa

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • The message from the polls has been remarkably consistent. If Trump were to win - even just the EC and not the PV - it would be one of the biggest polling failures on record surely. Which of course means it is unlikely.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    edited September 23
    Second!

    FPT
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_xP said:
    The sub-heading says it all:

    He thought making it upriver would fulfil his dream – instead it’s turned into a cruel form of humiliation

    Although I liked the description of Cummings as Johnson’s emotional support psycho
    Today, British people were invited to enjoy the spectacle of Johnson shutting pubs – for an hour – and the irony of being hectored that they are “in the last chance saloon” by the very people who herded them back to the saloon and bought them half-price lunches there.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,353
    Clinton won the popular vote.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,934
    The GOP’s stance on the Supreme Court is a good measure of how undemocratic the US has become. They are happy to sacrifice the presidency and probably control of the Senate if it means getting the judge they want on the SC.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,119

    Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,927
    FPT
    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,934
    edited September 23

    Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    Scott_xP said:
    Weird keeping referring to the 2019 deal when Tory MPs are about to trash it?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842

    Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
    Especially when you consider the polls’ tendency to over compensate for whatever they think they got wrong the last time
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 3,934
    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Deepest condolences
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,927

    alex_ said:
    There's a post on my Facebook to the effect that we haven't sorted out air travel yet, and it's still possible that air travel could halt, or, more likely, be curtailed.
    I thought this was about Corona Restrictions until I clicked on the link and realised it was about ending the Brexit Transitional Period!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,510
    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Sorry for your loss.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,510
    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Sorry for your loss.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,415
    IanB2 said:

    Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
    Especially when you consider the polls’ tendency to over compensate for whatever they think they got wrong the last time
    Caught by the new thread, FPT:
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    What odds would you say are appropriate for a race where one candidate has led the other by a steady 4% or so for several months?

    I haven't seen anyone here saying it's a sure thing - but normally you'd say the leading candidate is a fairly strong favourite.
    There is no such thing as a sure thing, but Biden's lead has been more or less the same since February despite plenty of events. With six weeks to go and many voting early, it is hard to see that change.

    Remember too how rare it is to lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College, it has only happened twice in modern times, and one of those was only 0.5%.

    Pollsters, Pundits and PB Punters are all busy fighting the last war. I reckon Trump will struggle to break 200 EV, and have bet accordingly.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Solicited or not, you have my sympathy. I'm so sorry for your loss.

    --AS
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,415
    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    I am very sorry to hear your news. 81 is an age when there is still plenty to enjoy in life.

    I am currently running a clinical audit to see how well our PPE and distancing measures worked in outpatients during the first wave. There is a balance needed to see people but not put them at further risk.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 3,927

    Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
    I disagree with the sentiment that the "PB consensus" is 50% for Trump.
    MrEd's resonings are so blatantly pro-Trump and unrealistic. There are maybe a couple more in this category.
    RCS makes lots of good points but I still get the impression he is at about 50%
    HYUFD is putting huge weight on "the best pollsters last time will be the best pollsters this time" which is misreading the level of ramdomness in pollster's performance (and especially as Rasmussen has over the years been shown to be consistently biassed pro Republican).

    The rest of us seem to be of the view 50-50% is a good value bet, possibly one of the best consistently available und justifiable political betting opportunities for years.
  • Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    That's very sad, Dura. Please accept my condolences.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,415
    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 62,543
    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Sorry for your loss.
    One area we've been genuinely world beating at, vaccines. I for one am glad to see us at the top of this chart
  • Fantastic work by the British government on getting early access on vaccines.

    And I couldn't care less about reports about developed countries getting access to the vaccines first. No shit Sherlock, we as developed nations also developed the vaccines and will no doubt for a while now be using our aid budgets, charity, foundations etc to pay for vaccines in the less developed world.

    Any time you fly you get told if the oxygen mask drops put your own mask on first and then assist with others. Same thing here.
  • Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
    I'm not. Biden is great value, particularly on the spreads. His chances of losing bigly are slim, but he could win very bigly. It seems now that Iowa, Georgia and even Texas could all flip, in which case PtP cleans up. Hope you do too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 28,108
    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    Germans don't worship their healthcare system as if it were a religion.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 28,108
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    I am very sorry to hear your news. 81 is an age when there is still plenty to enjoy in life.

    Thank you. If there is a positive to be taken is that she enjoyed 81 years of excellent health with no significant cognitive decline and did not suffer much at the end. That's more than most people get.
    Many condolences to you and your family. Not an easy thing to have to go through at the best of times.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 15,148
    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    I am very sorry to hear your news. 81 is an age when there is still plenty to enjoy in life.

    Thank you. If there is a positive to be taken is that she enjoyed 81 years of excellent health with no significant cognitive decline and did not suffer much at the end. That's more than most people get.
    Yes, that's very true - and a reminder to us all to enjoy life while we have it. All the same, sympathies and thank you for pointing out the conclusions.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Fair enough. But the crisis has revealed that, for many minor and straightforward complaints, it is actually more efficient for both patient and doctor to fill in a form with the details and get your prescription through the post, than to traipse down the surgery and waste twenty minutes sitting in front of the doctor.

    The key is going to be how effectively the potentially more serious issues can be triaged remotely.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 28,108
    That's fantastic news for the UK. Typical of the FT not to see it that way though.

    Having just spent a couple of hours reading what Fleet Street's finest have to say this morning, I'm now completely convinced that the UK media has either totally lost the plot, or are secretly hoping for another full lockdown and tens of thousands more deaths.

    Time to log off for the day and enjoy the sunshine before I get driven mad.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,504

    Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
    I'm not. Biden is great value, particularly on the spreads. His chances of losing bigly are slim, but he could win very bigly. It seems now that Iowa, Georgia and even Texas could all flip, in which case PtP cleans up. Hope you do too.
    This must be right. There is a chance that Trump will repeat his 2016 trick and thread the eye of the needle but its going to be a damn close run thing at the very best for him. In contrast, if the polls prove to be correct and the election anything like free and fair (not a given sadly) he could get absolutely hammered with a whole slew of states flipping. It makes a spread bet on Biden attractive. Low downside, big upside.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,465
    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    My commiserations.

    Your last sentence is very, very true. Personal family experience etc.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842

    Fantastic work by the British government on getting early access on vaccines.

    And I couldn't care less about reports about developed countries getting access to the vaccines first. No shit Sherlock, we as developed nations also developed the vaccines and will no doubt for a while now be using our aid budgets, charity, foundations etc to pay for vaccines in the less developed world.

    Any time you fly you get told if the oxygen mask drops put your own mask on first and then assist with others. Same thing here.
    Good to be beating the US at their own game. Unless it’s Moderna.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,415

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
  • Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Really sorry to hear about your mother's death, take care.
  • Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Do you have similar concerns about video call appointments with doctors or is it just phone with call handlers? To me video appointments with a doctor seem a big part of the future and something that can be arranged at no more cost than current arrangements and give quicker access to patients.
  • Scott_xP said:
    This MP is either an idiot or a liar, or more likely both.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    Sandpit said:

    That's fantastic news for the UK. Typical of the FT not to see it that way though.

    Having just spent a couple of hours reading what Fleet Street's finest have to say this morning, I'm now completely convinced that the UK media has either totally lost the plot, or are secretly hoping for another full lockdown and tens of thousands more deaths.

    Time to log off for the day and enjoy the sunshine before I get driven mad.
    You can’t really blame journalists for wanting a big story to cover.

    It is why they would be rather miffed if they knew of a big story involving someone important behaving very badly, but were prevented for some legal reason from reporting it. Just as well that isn’t the case, then.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,504
    Sincere condolences to @Dura_Ace. It makes me reflect on the fact that I know no one who has died of this. Indeed I only know 2 people who have definitely had it. One of them was really quite ill despite being in his 40s, slim and reasonably fit, the other got confirmed on a test but was never particularly ill. Both have now made a full recovery.

    So is the incidence of this much lower than perceived or is my experience typical of the "iceberg" where a number of my friends are somewhat unsure if the bug they had was the virus or not and never sought medical help?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 28,108
    Foxy said:

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
    Wow, didn't know those existed, a recent invention?

    Great for mountaineering, private flying and those visiting high altitudes.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,465
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    A problem of large organisation is that the metrics become the goal of the whole organisation - in order to make change, a simple message has to be "shouted" across the entire organisation.

    So protect the NHS morphs into "empty the hospitals", and once that is done, turning the ship around becomes very very difficult.

    I was talking with someone about testing. Apparently, the "must ration testing" mantra in the early days of the epidemic became another organisation goal.
  • Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
    I'm not. Biden is great value, particularly on the spreads. His chances of losing bigly are slim, but he could win very bigly. It seems now that Iowa, Georgia and even Texas could all flip, in which case PtP cleans up. Hope you do too.
    The Republicans seem happy conceding the election in exchange for the supreme court seat. Perhaps it will all come together, Trump contests the election despite a clear loss and his new jurors rule in favour of Trump.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,504
    Foxy said:

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
    I got one on your recommendation a couple of months ago.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,415
    edited September 23

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Do you have similar concerns about video call appointments with doctors or is it just phone with call handlers? To me video appointments with a doctor seem a big part of the future and something that can be arranged at no more cost than current arrangements and give quicker access to patients.
    Various bits of remote assessment can work well, but the dynamics of a consultation and examination are needed for good medical practice. Good GPs are very astute at these, and can pick up when a minor complaint is the tip of a clinical iceberg. Addiction and mental health issues often present as minor physical health issues for example.

    The argument for telemedicine is really one of efficiency and convenience for both parties rather than the quality of care. There needs to be some trade off, but we should recognise what we are losing too.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,221
    I know many on here hate ch4 news but at the moment they are running a 20 minute segment each evening from the US looking at a whole range of issues from the election, militias, major weather events etc. interesting and covering different ground to the other channels. As an aside they had an in depth look at grouse shooting the other night showing letters from Crown Estates indicating they wanted the moors back so they could be more environmentally managed.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,465

    Fantastic work by the British government on getting early access on vaccines.

    And I couldn't care less about reports about developed countries getting access to the vaccines first. No shit Sherlock, we as developed nations also developed the vaccines and will no doubt for a while now be using our aid budgets, charity, foundations etc to pay for vaccines in the less developed world.

    Any time you fly you get told if the oxygen mask drops put your own mask on first and then assist with others. Same thing here.
    ...and by funding early production, this means that more vaccine will be available earlier. The manufacturing facilities aren't going to evaporate the moment that orders are fulfilled....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,701
    I’m very sorry to hear your news, Dura_Ace.
    And I strongly agree with both your illustrative points.
  • Fantastic work by the British government on getting early access on vaccines.

    And I couldn't care less about reports about developed countries getting access to the vaccines first. No shit Sherlock, we as developed nations also developed the vaccines and will no doubt for a while now be using our aid budgets, charity, foundations etc to pay for vaccines in the less developed world.

    Any time you fly you get told if the oxygen mask drops put your own mask on first and then assist with others. Same thing here.
    Don't count your vaccinated chickens. We can have as many pre-orders as we like but if President Xi/Trump/Putin restricts exports, foreign-manufactured vaccines will not be delivered.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,701
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 20,296
    Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Every sympathy. Know what you mean about precautions. Very sorry for your loss.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,353
    When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

    Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

    If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,465
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Fair enough. But the crisis has revealed that, for many minor and straightforward complaints, it is actually more efficient for both patient and doctor to fill in a form with the details and get your prescription through the post, than to traipse down the surgery and waste twenty minutes sitting in front of the doctor.

    The key is going to be how effectively the potentially more serious issues can be triaged remotely.
    Has anyone ever done clinical trials on the value of face-to-face vs remote consultations?
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Do you have similar concerns about video call appointments with doctors or is it just phone with call handlers? To me video appointments with a doctor seem a big part of the future and something that can be arranged at no more cost than current arrangements and give quicker access to patients.
    Various bits of remote assessment can work well, but the dynamics of a consultation and examination are needed for good medical practice. Good GPs are very astute at these, and can pick up when a minor complaint is the tip of a clinical iceberg. Addiction and mental health issues often present as minor physical health issues for example.

    The argument for telemedicine is really one of efficiency and convenience for both parties rather than the quality of care. There needs to be some trade off, but we should recognise what we are losing too.
    Tech can surely help here - I dont see why pattern recognition on faces couldnt be used to help identify stress and mental health issues in the future for example. Also it could be very quick and easy for a GP to transfer a patient to a doctor specialising in addiction if there was a national capacity for video appointments set up.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 20,296
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Do you have similar concerns about video call appointments with doctors or is it just phone with call handlers? To me video appointments with a doctor seem a big part of the future and something that can be arranged at no more cost than current arrangements and give quicker access to patients.
    Various bits of remote assessment can work well, but the dynamics of a consultation and examination are needed for good medical practice. Good GPs are very astute at these, and can pick up when a minor complaint is the tip of a clinical iceberg. Addiction and mental health issues often present as minor physical health issues for example.

    The argument for telemedicine is really one of efficiency and convenience for both parties rather than the quality of care. There needs to be some trade off, but we should recognise what we are losing too.
    While agreeing that the whole patient needs rot be seen, I think there's a case for use video calls, not just phone calls.
    A relation in the Channel Islands has been offered a phone consultation with a specialist on the mainland, but a request, by the patient, for it to take place by some form of video was refused.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,701

    Fantastic work by the British government on getting early access on vaccines.

    And I couldn't care less about reports about developed countries getting access to the vaccines first. No shit Sherlock, we as developed nations also developed the vaccines and will no doubt for a while now be using our aid budgets, charity, foundations etc to pay for vaccines in the less developed world.

    Any time you fly you get told if the oxygen mask drops put your own mask on first and then assist with others. Same thing here.
    Though we are quite happy to use their outbreaks for our clinical trials.

    The UK has actually been pretty good participating in international efforts to fund and distribute vaccines.
    Trump is, unsurprisingly, acting like an arse.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/01/us-covid-19-vaccine-refuses-international-effort-coronavirus
  • Sandpit said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    Germans don't worship their healthcare system as if it were a religion.
    Is that supposed to help? Italian and Spanish hospitals were overwhelmed, and that is what HMG was concerned to prevent here. Whether the Italians and Spaniards worship their healthcare systems is neither known nor relevant.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    Sorry to hear it.
  • IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Fair enough. But the crisis has revealed that, for many minor and straightforward complaints, it is actually more efficient for both patient and doctor to fill in a form with the details and get your prescription through the post, than to traipse down the surgery and waste twenty minutes sitting in front of the doctor.

    The key is going to be how effectively the potentially more serious issues can be triaged remotely.
    Has anyone ever done clinical trials on the value of face-to-face vs remote consultations?
    There is so much scope for improvement in remote consultations from the current level that even if they are worse now (happy to accept they very likely are worse now) they will still be the future and better eventually.
  • Fantastic work by the British government on getting early access on vaccines.

    And I couldn't care less about reports about developed countries getting access to the vaccines first. No shit Sherlock, we as developed nations also developed the vaccines and will no doubt for a while now be using our aid budgets, charity, foundations etc to pay for vaccines in the less developed world.

    Any time you fly you get told if the oxygen mask drops put your own mask on first and then assist with others. Same thing here.
    Don't count your vaccinated chickens. We can have as many pre-orders as we like but if President Xi/Trump/Putin restricts exports, foreign-manufactured vaccines will not be delivered.
    Which is why its a good thing we have domestic manufacturing procedures getting prepared.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,701

    Fishing said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Nate Cohn confirms that Trump is within 2% of making the race neck-and-neck. (Because Biden's current average lead in PA, the most likely tipping point state, is about 4% at the moment).

    Nate Cohn confirms Biden is within 2% of the biggest electoral college victory in 36 years and carrying Texas for the Dems for the first time since 1976. Amazing what a one sided view PB takes of this race.
    Not when you consider the elections of 2016 and 2017. There's always the once-bitten-twice-shy crowd.
    Yes, those elections show that normal size polling errors occur fairly often. But there’s no reason to assume they always affect a particular side.
    FPT since it's now on topic:

    So like 30% chance it swings >2% left, 30% chance it swings 2%> right, 40% chance it stays where it's been for months and Biden is massive, incredible, unbelievable value, no??? What is it about the general consensus that you're disagreeing with? Or do you just want the threads to spend more time saying that although the value is obviously with Biden, it wouldn't be too weird if you made the value bet and lost?
    The PB consensus seems to be that Trump has a 50% shot of winning, whereas the polls put it at 20%. Posters like MrEd and rcs100 pore over polls in Minnesota (which has an average 10% Biden lead) convinced it’s going to flip to Trump, whilst ignoring the evidence that show Georgia and Texas in a dead heat. Then of course there is HYUFD and his infamous Traflagar polls.

    I’m simply saying that PB is underrating the chance of a significant Biden wind, mainly due to shell shock from 2016z
    I'm not. Biden is great value, particularly on the spreads. His chances of losing bigly are slim, but he could win very bigly. It seems now that Iowa, Georgia and even Texas could all flip, in which case PtP cleans up. Hope you do too.
    Agreed, & good luck.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,221

    Sandpit said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    Germans don't worship their healthcare system as if it were a religion.
    Is that supposed to help? Italian and Spanish hospitals were overwhelmed, and that is what HMG was concerned to prevent here. Whether the Italians and Spaniards worship their healthcare systems is neither known nor relevant.
    The Spanish started the clap for health workers from their locked down homes quite a while before the UK, they don’t worship the service but have enormous respect for those that work in it
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,205
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
    Wow, didn't know those existed, a recent invention?

    Great for mountaineering, private flying and those visiting high altitudes.
    The latest version of the Apple Watch can monitor blood oxygenation although not to a “medical” standard.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 43,983
    edited September 23
    Jonathan said:

    When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

    Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

    If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.

    Because competition works Jonathan to make improvements.

    World beating things the UK has developed, like our best in the world testing capacity and our best in the world vaccine orders help develop testing procedures and vaccine capabilities that can apply elsewhere too.

    There absolutely is something to be gained from seeking to have a better system than your neighbours, both for you and your neighbours. Especially if they're trying to be the best too then they are innovating and improving which you can learn from. This doesn't mean sabotaging others.

    Competition is fantastic.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,504
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Do you have similar concerns about video call appointments with doctors or is it just phone with call handlers? To me video appointments with a doctor seem a big part of the future and something that can be arranged at no more cost than current arrangements and give quicker access to patients.
    Various bits of remote assessment can work well, but the dynamics of a consultation and examination are needed for good medical practice. Good GPs are very astute at these, and can pick up when a minor complaint is the tip of a clinical iceberg. Addiction and mental health issues often present as minor physical health issues for example.

    The argument for telemedicine is really one of efficiency and convenience for both parties rather than the quality of care. There needs to be some trade off, but we should recognise what we are losing too.
    About 20 months ago now I was feeling very under the weather with a series of fairly unspecific symptoms. It got so bad my wife pushed me into going to see my GP for the first time in several years. We had a chat and he just looked at me. He said, you're never here, I really think we need to look into this. He sent me to the hospital for tests and I got a phone call telling me to leave a court case and report to the hospital immediately. Apparently I had clots on my lungs and one was impacting on my heart.

    I am very grateful for his attention and alertness but I honestly do not believe this would have happened on a video consultation. When I do these with my own work you just don't get the same level of feedback, its much harder to be confident that the client understands what you are saying and is making a properly informed choice. I think doctors, especially those dealing with chronic conditions, would find it even harder.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,221
    Jonathan said:

    When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

    Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

    If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.

    To many it’s a competition and an opportunity to show how great the stand alone UK is.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,205
    @Philip_Thompson the claim that any other country would want to copy our testing regime is very funny.
  • Jonathan said:

    When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

    Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

    If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.

    Because Boris really really wants to be Churchill.
  • Sandpit said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    Germans don't worship their healthcare system as if it were a religion.
    Not freedom loving or healthcare system worshipping enuff obvs.
  • @Philip_Thompson the claim that any other country would want to copy our testing regime is very funny.

    Considering we're testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet, I don't see the joke.
  • nichomar said:

    Jonathan said:

    When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

    Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

    If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.

    To many it’s a competition and an opportunity to show how great the stand alone UK is.
    Thank goodness.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    Nigelb said:
    According to the article:

    - solid early travel restrictions, when it actually mattered
    - good clear nationwide communications
    - proactive test and trace, using rapid pool testing as an initial screen
    - mandatory masks
    - previous experience of handling infection disease by population and healthcare workers
    - three weeks’ tight lockdown, and again when a second wave loomed
    - forced quarantine of all suspected cases
    - youthful population
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,353

    Jonathan said:

    When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

    Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

    If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.

    Because competition works Jonathan to make improvements.

    World beating things the UK has developed, like our best in the world testing capacity and our best in the world vaccine orders help develop testing procedures and vaccine capabilities that can apply elsewhere too.

    There absolutely is something to be gained from having a better system than your neighbours, both for you and your neighbours. Especially if they're trying to be the best too then they are innovating and improving which you can learn from.

    Competition is fantastic.
    A bit old hat. Amazon did not achieve market dominance by judging itself by its competitors. If you are purely competitor focussed you limit what you achieve in situations like this. You stop once you’ve got one over on your rival. A more modern approach is to focus on the service you’re providing your customer, in this case the citizen.

  • Dura_Ace said:

    So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

    She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

    I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

    I am truly sorry to hear your news and how it happened

    I send you and your family my deepest sympathy and thoughts

    And it does highlight just how vulnerable my wife, who is also 81, and I are to catching it due to an innocent hospital admission
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 11,205

    @Philip_Thompson the claim that any other country would want to copy our testing regime is very funny.

    Considering we're testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet, I don't see the joke.
    So are other countries queuing up to copy our “world beating” system? Please share some evidence?
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,027
    Foxy said:

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
    I bought one from Amazon a few weeks ago fo about 35 quid. It can give readings of 80 percent or so to 99 percent within the space of a few minutes, especially if my hands aren't warm. Also, my blood pressure gadget can give readings of between 112/65 and, say, 130/65 within minutes. Well, I always have been highly strung. Humph.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 43,126
    Nigelb said:

    Fantastic work by the British government on getting early access on vaccines.

    And I couldn't care less about reports about developed countries getting access to the vaccines first. No shit Sherlock, we as developed nations also developed the vaccines and will no doubt for a while now be using our aid budgets, charity, foundations etc to pay for vaccines in the less developed world.

    Any time you fly you get told if the oxygen mask drops put your own mask on first and then assist with others. Same thing here.
    Though we are quite happy to use their outbreaks for our clinical trials.

    The UK has actually been pretty good participating in international efforts to fund and distribute vaccines.
    Trump is, unsurprisingly, acting like an arse.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/01/us-covid-19-vaccine-refuses-international-effort-coronavirus
    Guardian doesn’t mention that neither France (which impounded the NHS’ mask order early in the pandemic) nor Germany are taking part in COVAX either....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Do you have similar concerns about video call appointments with doctors or is it just phone with call handlers? To me video appointments with a doctor seem a big part of the future and something that can be arranged at no more cost than current arrangements and give quicker access to patients.
    Various bits of remote assessment can work well, but the dynamics of a consultation and examination are needed for good medical practice. Good GPs are very astute at these, and can pick up when a minor complaint is the tip of a clinical iceberg. Addiction and mental health issues often present as minor physical health issues for example.

    The argument for telemedicine is really one of efficiency and convenience for both parties rather than the quality of care. There needs to be some trade off, but we should recognise what we are losing too.
    About 20 months ago now I was feeling very under the weather with a series of fairly unspecific symptoms. It got so bad my wife pushed me into going to see my GP for the first time in several years. We had a chat and he just looked at me. He said, you're never here, I really think we need to look into this. He sent me to the hospital for tests and I got a phone call telling me to leave a court case and report to the hospital immediately. Apparently I had clots on my lungs and one was impacting on my heart.

    I am very grateful for his attention and alertness but I honestly do not believe this would have happened on a video consultation. When I do these with my own work you just don't get the same level of feedback, its much harder to be confident that the client understands what you are saying and is making a properly informed choice. I think doctors, especially those dealing with chronic conditions, would find it even harder.
    Sorry to hear that, hope things resolve.

    Surely if the clue was your not having contacted the doctor about anything for ages, the same clue would have triggered had you suddenly requested a video cons?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 8,465

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Fair enough. But the crisis has revealed that, for many minor and straightforward complaints, it is actually more efficient for both patient and doctor to fill in a form with the details and get your prescription through the post, than to traipse down the surgery and waste twenty minutes sitting in front of the doctor.

    The key is going to be how effectively the potentially more serious issues can be triaged remotely.
    Has anyone ever done clinical trials on the value of face-to-face vs remote consultations?
    There is so much scope for improvement in remote consultations from the current level that even if they are worse now (happy to accept they very likely are worse now) they will still be the future and better eventually.

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Fair enough. But the crisis has revealed that, for many minor and straightforward complaints, it is actually more efficient for both patient and doctor to fill in a form with the details and get your prescription through the post, than to traipse down the surgery and waste twenty minutes sitting in front of the doctor.

    The key is going to be how effectively the potentially more serious issues can be triaged remotely.
    Has anyone ever done clinical trials on the value of face-to-face vs remote consultations?
    There is so much scope for improvement in remote consultations from the current level that even if they are worse now (happy to accept they very likely are worse now) they will still be the future and better eventually.
    True - but instead of adhoc-we-must-do-something-this-is-something policy, which will lead rapidly to "that's the standard way of doing it", what about some actual evidence?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,504
    Nigelb said:
    Now that's what I call world beating. In the early weeks of this there was speculation that people of SE Asia were particularly vulnerable to this disease, something to do with blood type as I recall. We now seem to be in the reverse where they are significantly less vulnerable, possibly as a result of exposure to other viruses in the past and the development of anti-bodies.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,842
    nichomar said:

    Sandpit said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    Germans don't worship their healthcare system as if it were a religion.
    Is that supposed to help? Italian and Spanish hospitals were overwhelmed, and that is what HMG was concerned to prevent here. Whether the Italians and Spaniards worship their healthcare systems is neither known nor relevant.
    The Spanish started the clap for health workers from their locked down homes quite a while before the UK, they don’t worship the service but have enormous respect for those that work in it
    The Spanish clap spread very quickly around the world.

    Thankfully the Italian singing to your neighbours out of your windows did not.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,748



    And it does highlight just how vulnerable my wife, who is also 81, and I are to catching it due to an innocent hospital admission

    Take no chances, G, take no chances. Act as if everyone you meet has it.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,221

    Jonathan said:

    When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

    Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

    If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.

    Because competition works Jonathan to make improvements.

    World beating things the UK has developed, like our best in the world testing capacity and our best in the world vaccine orders help develop testing procedures and vaccine capabilities that can apply elsewhere too.

    There absolutely is something to be gained from seeking to have a better system than your neighbours, both for you and your neighbours. Especially if they're trying to be the best too then they are innovating and improving which you can learn from. This doesn't mean sabotaging others.

    Competition is fantastic.
    Competition between nations in the current circumstances is crude nationalism, destructive and selfish. What is required is mass cooperation between nations given we all have the same objective.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,393

    @Philip_Thompson the claim that any other country would want to copy our testing regime is very funny.

    Considering we're testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet, I don't see the joke.
    Are you paid to spend all these hours every day jealously guarding the reputation of Johnson?
  • IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Fair enough. But the crisis has revealed that, for many minor and straightforward complaints, it is actually more efficient for both patient and doctor to fill in a form with the details and get your prescription through the post, than to traipse down the surgery and waste twenty minutes sitting in front of the doctor.

    The key is going to be how effectively the potentially more serious issues can be triaged remotely.
    Has anyone ever done clinical trials on the value of face-to-face vs remote consultations?
    There is so much scope for improvement in remote consultations from the current level that even if they are worse now (happy to accept they very likely are worse now) they will still be the future and better eventually.

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Fair enough. But the crisis has revealed that, for many minor and straightforward complaints, it is actually more efficient for both patient and doctor to fill in a form with the details and get your prescription through the post, than to traipse down the surgery and waste twenty minutes sitting in front of the doctor.

    The key is going to be how effectively the potentially more serious issues can be triaged remotely.
    Has anyone ever done clinical trials on the value of face-to-face vs remote consultations?
    There is so much scope for improvement in remote consultations from the current level that even if they are worse now (happy to accept they very likely are worse now) they will still be the future and better eventually.
    True - but instead of adhoc-we-must-do-something-this-is-something policy, which will lead rapidly to "that's the standard way of doing it", what about some actual evidence?
    Where was the evidence that the NHS would be better than pre NHS when it was being proposed? It obviously wasn't there in the same way that it cant be proven that a national remote GP service on demand, in conjunction with local physical GP service will be better than just the local physical service. I am not saying it will be better straight away, it will become better as there is so much more scope for innovation and efficiency.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 26,701
    .
    Toms said:

    Foxy said:

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
    I bought one from Amazon a few weeks ago fo about 35 quid. It can give readings of 80 percent or so to 99 percent within the space of a few minutes, especially if my hands aren't warm. Also, my blood pressure gadget can give readings of between 112/65 and, say, 130/65 within minutes. Well, I always have been highly strung. Humph.
    You could try replacing the batteries.
    It seems to be a fairly common phenomenon that the readings start to go haywire if the batteries aren’t on good order.
    But the devices certainly aren’t infallible anyway.
  • Dura_Ace said:



    And it does highlight just how vulnerable my wife, who is also 81, and I are to catching it due to an innocent hospital admission

    Take no chances, G, take no chances. Act as if everyone you meet has it.
    Thank you for your kind comments and yes we will
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,504
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Foxy said:

    I have said all along that the "Stay at home" "Protect the NHS" was a dangerous one. It is an appalling situation that this sick patient was never assessed face to face. A very depressing tale for a morning:

    "Stay at home" and "Protect the NHS" are both good instructions, but both at the same time
    "Stay at home to protect the NHS" was a huge mistake. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm very glad this was not the mantra in Germany.
    The intense focus on protecting the NHS was a direct response to watching the tragedy that unfolded here in Bergamo. What it misses is that protecting the NHS is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

    Some of the actions taken to protect the NHS, such as clearing elderly patients into care homes without testing, proved highly damaging to what should have been the ‘end’, being protecting people and patients.
    I think there are pretty low limits on how safe telephone assessment is, particularly when being done by a call handler with little or no clinical experience, just an algorithm. There needs to be escalation to more senior people for repeat callers.

    The government has been deprofessionalising my calling for years, and too many doctors have collaborated with the rise of poorly supervised non medical clinicians.
    Do you have similar concerns about video call appointments with doctors or is it just phone with call handlers? To me video appointments with a doctor seem a big part of the future and something that can be arranged at no more cost than current arrangements and give quicker access to patients.
    Various bits of remote assessment can work well, but the dynamics of a consultation and examination are needed for good medical practice. Good GPs are very astute at these, and can pick up when a minor complaint is the tip of a clinical iceberg. Addiction and mental health issues often present as minor physical health issues for example.

    The argument for telemedicine is really one of efficiency and convenience for both parties rather than the quality of care. There needs to be some trade off, but we should recognise what we are losing too.
    About 20 months ago now I was feeling very under the weather with a series of fairly unspecific symptoms. It got so bad my wife pushed me into going to see my GP for the first time in several years. We had a chat and he just looked at me. He said, you're never here, I really think we need to look into this. He sent me to the hospital for tests and I got a phone call telling me to leave a court case and report to the hospital immediately. Apparently I had clots on my lungs and one was impacting on my heart.

    I am very grateful for his attention and alertness but I honestly do not believe this would have happened on a video consultation. When I do these with my own work you just don't get the same level of feedback, its much harder to be confident that the client understands what you are saying and is making a properly informed choice. I think doctors, especially those dealing with chronic conditions, would find it even harder.
    Sorry to hear that, hope things resolve.

    Surely if the clue was your not having contacted the doctor about anything for ages, the same clue would have triggered had you suddenly requested a video cons?
    Oh I'm fine, have been for ages. But I am not sure about the clues. When I was doing advocacy training we were taught that 93% of communication was non verbal. It is a ridiculously precise number and probably too high but there is something about seeing the whole person, how they move, how they are holding themselves, that can give clues as to whether they are lying (in my cases) or whether they are really unwell.

    Video is a lot better than telephone. I have done remote court hearings by both now and telephone is hopeless for anything more than procedural stuff. But it is still way short of being able to read your decision maker properly.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 18,279
    On an non betting note I found Romney's statements yesterday the most patronising bullshit.

    His comment about how liberals have got used to a left leaning court was just astounding. Even ignoring that the GOP have lost the popular vote every time bar one since '88 there is the fact that the SC had had a majority of justices appointed by Republicans since 1970. For 50 years it has been a majority Republican appointed court.

    The Romney is pretending stealing Obama's pick and then shoving through someone now is redressing a longstanding imbalance is vomit inducing shit.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,027
    edited September 23
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Toms said:

    Foxy said:

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
    I bought one from Amazon a few weeks ago fo about 35 quid. It can give readings of 80 percent or so to 99 percent within the space of a few minutes, especially if my hands aren't warm. Also, my blood pressure gadget can give readings of between 112/65 and, say, 130/65 within minutes. Well, I always have been highly strung. Humph.
    You could try replacing the batteries.
    It seems to be a fairly common phenomenon that the readings start to go haywire if the batteries aren’t on good order.
    But the devices certainly aren’t infallible anyway.
    Thanks. I'll check, but I think they're OK. I think I may be living on a fractal edge, but I have been doing that for 81 years. Maybe I should consider taking up yoga?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 19,415
    Toms said:

    Foxy said:

    Condolences Dura_Ace.

    A very good point made in sorrow too about the importance of hygiene for protecting others not just yourself.

    One thing that we have learned over the first wave is the danger of silent hypoxia. If any PBer didn't buy one in the first wave, then it perhaps a good time to get one. They are on Amazon with next day delivery from a variety of suppliers. As essential as a thermometer for Covid-19.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=pulse+oximeters&sprefix=pulse&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-ap-p_1_5
    I bought one from Amazon a few weeks ago fo about 35 quid. It can give readings of 80 percent or so to 99 percent within the space of a few minutes, especially if my hands aren't warm. Also, my blood pressure gadget can give readings of between 112/65 and, say, 130/65 within minutes. Well, I always have been highly strung. Humph.
    Good point, every home medical kit should have a Blood Pressure monitor too, they start at about £20. Low BP is and fast heart rate is a danger sign with Covid-19.

    Accurate temperature, BP and O2 saturation add a lot to a remote consultation in times of COVID19.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 33,504
    Alistair said:

    On an non betting note I found Romney's statements yesterday the most patronising bullshit.

    His comment about how liberals have got used to a left leaning court was just astounding. Even ignoring that the GOP have lost the popular vote every time bar one since '88 there is the fact that the SC had had a majority of justices appointed by Republicans since 1970. For 50 years it has been a majority Republican appointed court.

    The Romney is pretending stealing Obama's pick and then shoving through someone now is redressing a longstanding imbalance is vomit inducing shit.

    Quite a lot of work to come across as one of the good guys who had no time for Trump's antics and idiocy undone in a single day. Disappointing.
This discussion has been closed.