On the spreads Biden has moved up from 281 ECVs a month ago to 313 this afternoon – politicalbetting

Primus inter pares.

Done solely to ensure so everyone can comment on this thread.

Still value.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/lemonwatcher/status/1313463099530391555

The article that tweet is based is a great example of why the Athletic is head and shoulders above the rest of the sports coverage. Real in-depth detail.

New footage of Trump leaving the medical centre on his steroids.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/ryancapperauld/status/1313461281307885569

If you're in the whole feeling a bit off/not sure it's covid why wouldn't you minimise your contacts ? Doing a church reading in her circs is crazy.

kinabalu said:

Yep, looking good.

And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -

What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?

As at yesterday, across all three of 538, Economist and YouGov models, fair value for Biden ECVs was around 335, i.e. 132 on the Supremacy market. You might want to adjust that downwards for GOP shenanigans, or adjust it upwards if you think things are trending away from Trump.

Personally I'm holding my open bet (like Mike's, equivalent to a buy at 284) for now.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown

Why not just lock down the university?

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown

2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.

Give it a couple of days...

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown

2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.

Give it a couple of days...

Indeed. If this had been around in my Freshers week we'd be in the high thousands by now.

Maybe people have lower expectations of Biden because they feel he shouldn't win.

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown

2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.

Give it a couple of days...

Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.

It's not a disaster in itself, but could rapidly become one if, as is very likely, the infection can't be confined to the students and spreads through the city.

@kinabalu - fpt, enquiry about ECV Supremacy Market

Can't do any better than use 538s suggestion. That reckons 338/200 to Biden so a supremacy of 138. I'd round that down to 100 for MoE which is still 14 points above Biden's buy price of 86.

Personally I bought in much lower than that (hat-tip Richard Nabavi) but I'd be happy to buy in again at 86 if Sporting would let me but for some reason the bastards limit strictly the extent to which they're prepared to supplement my pension.

Subject to all the usual caveats (spread betting is reisky etc) I'd suggest you calculate the maximum loss you could bear without becoming suicidal and figure out what stake would lose you that if you finished 200 points down. Then buy for that stake. (E.g. if you can bear to lose £1,000 your stake should be £5 per point.)

I know the risks of spread betting and have been burned myself from time to time, but I think the downside risks here are low because of the extreme improbability of a Trump landslide. It's for that reason I have maxed out on this market.

Hope that helps. Good luck.

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

No, it's not really. The government will push a national vaccination scheme for everyone over the age of 18. Not vaccinating 18-50 year olds will have a huge economic cost because it will take years for this cohort to acquire herd immunity and for life to resume as normal. A vaccine is a shortcut to a resumption of non distanced life, why buy 120m doses of we're only going to use half of them (two doses per person).

Quite rightly care workers and the vulnerable will get the vaccine first, as they should, then we will get back to normal.

Healthy young adults will eventually get the vaccine but we'd already be back to normal by the time they do.

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown

2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.

Give it a couple of days...

Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.

It's not a disaster in itself, but could rapidly become one if, as is very likely, the infection can't be confined to the students and spreads through the city.

Student goes to corner shop, owned by middle aged South Asian chap who owns it and is loathe to take time off for a few sniffles. Granny goes to corner shop.......

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown

2% of the student population. I'm surprised its that low.

Give it a couple of days...

Tbh, it's not a disaster. Students are exactly the sort of cohort we need to build herd immunity. Anyone under the age of 40 without pre-existing conditions shouldn't be afraid of catching it.

It's not a disaster in itself, but could rapidly become one if, as is very likely, the infection can't be confined to the students and spreads through the city.

Student goes to corner shop, owned by middle aged South Asian chap who owns it and is loathe to take time off for a few sniffles. Granny goes to corner shop.......

Yes, I'm afraid that is all it takes.

SandyRentool said:

They should only have allowed the engineering students to return to Uni. No risk of social interaction.

Plus of course, having been told to wear a mask, they'd double it and wear two masks just to be on the safe side.

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

No, it's not really. The government will push a national vaccination scheme for everyone over the age of 18. Not vaccinating 18-50 year olds will have a huge economic cost because it will take years for this cohort to acquire herd immunity and for life to resume as normal. A vaccine is a shortcut to a resumption of non distanced life, why buy 120m doses of we're only going to use half of them (two doses per person).

Quite rightly care workers and the vulnerable will get the vaccine first, as they should, then we will get back to normal.

Healthy young adults will eventually get the vaccine but we'd already be back to normal by the time they do.

No with the way the government has been fear mongering about the virus we won't return to normal until the vaccine programme has been completed. People are afraid of their own shadows at the moment.

I don't agree. Many young people are scared of infecting their loved ones - "don't kill your grandparents".

As far as I'm concerned once the vulnerable have been vaccinated I'm eager to get back to normal. I don't care about myself, I just don't want my grandparents to get it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

Surely an "adult only vaccine" is for those over the age of 18, not 50 ?

There are obviously sound reasons for vaccinating particular groups first, but any subsequent rationing is a political decision.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

No, it's not really. The government will push a national vaccination scheme for everyone over the age of 18. Not vaccinating 18-50 year olds will have a huge economic cost because it will take years for this cohort to acquire herd immunity and for life to resume as normal. A vaccine is a shortcut to a resumption of non distanced life, why buy 120m doses of we're only going to use half of them (two doses per person).

Quite rightly care workers and the vulnerable will get the vaccine first, as they should, then we will get back to normal.

Healthy young adults will eventually get the vaccine but we'd already be back to normal by the time they do.

No with the way the government has been fear mongering about the virus we won't return to normal until the vaccine programme has been completed. People are afraid of their own shadows at the moment.

I don't agree. Many young people are scared of infecting their loved ones - "don't kill your grandparents".

As far as I'm concerned once the vulnerable have been vaccinated I'm eager to get back to normal. I don't care about myself, I just don't want my grandparents to get it.

The problem is that even if only 25% of people are afraid of their own shadows then the economy will not return to anything like normal. A national vaccination programme and a study for vaccines in kids is the only way to resolve this. We can't run an economy without everyone participating in full.

DAlexander said:

Maybe people have lower expectations of Biden because they feel he shouldn't win.

Would you care to expand on those feelings ?

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

No, it's not really. The government will push a national vaccination scheme for everyone over the age of 18. Not vaccinating 18-50 year olds will have a huge economic cost because it will take years for this cohort to acquire herd immunity and for life to resume as normal. A vaccine is a shortcut to a resumption of non distanced life, why buy 120m doses of we're only going to use half of them (two doses per person).

Quite rightly care workers and the vulnerable will get the vaccine first, as they should, then we will get back to normal.

Healthy young adults will eventually get the vaccine but we'd already be back to normal by the time they do.

No with the way the government has been fear mongering about the virus we won't return to normal until the vaccine programme has been completed. People are afraid of their own shadows at the moment.

I don't agree. Many young people are scared of infecting their loved ones - "don't kill your grandparents".

As far as I'm concerned once the vulnerable have been vaccinated I'm eager to get back to normal. I don't care about myself, I just don't want my grandparents to get it.

The problem is that even if only 25% of people are afraid of their own shadows then the economy will not return to anything like normal. A national vaccination programme and a study for vaccines in kids is the only way to resolve this. We can't run an economy without everyone participating in full.

I think you're being overly pessimistic. Once we've vaccinated the vulnerable deaths could drop to zero at which point it ceases to be a major news story. A lot of young people already want to get back to normal, give it another six months plus their grandparents have been vaccinated and you're not going to stop them getting back to normal whether you want to or not.

This struck me as interesting - "LPF and governance" - not "Fish" - and from reports the UK has been unclear on "LPF and governance" beyond "trust us" - which is brave under the circumstances....

https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1313448603319521280?s=20

SandyRentool said:

They should only have allowed the engineering students to return to Uni. No risk of social interaction.

If it were an STI I'd agree with you. However, I only discovered when I left university that engineering students have a reputation for being drunks. Looking back... yeah maybe.

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

No, it's not really. The government will push a national vaccination scheme for everyone over the age of 18. Not vaccinating 18-50 year olds will have a huge economic cost because it will take years for this cohort to acquire herd immunity and for life to resume as normal. A vaccine is a shortcut to a resumption of non distanced life, why buy 120m doses of we're only going to use half of them (two doses per person).

Quite rightly care workers and the vulnerable will get the vaccine first, as they should, then we will get back to normal.

Healthy young adults will eventually get the vaccine but we'd already be back to normal by the time they do.

No with the way the government has been fear mongering about the virus we won't return to normal until the vaccine programme has been completed. People are afraid of their own shadows at the moment.

Well quite, an obvious example is cinemas - they aren't mandated closed by fiat at the moment.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

No, it's not really. The government will push a national vaccination scheme for everyone over the age of 18. Not vaccinating 18-50 year olds will have a huge economic cost because it will take years for this cohort to acquire herd immunity and for life to resume as normal. A vaccine is a shortcut to a resumption of non distanced life, why buy 120m doses of we're only going to use half of them (two doses per person).

Quite rightly care workers and the vulnerable will get the vaccine first, as they should, then we will get back to normal.

Healthy young adults will eventually get the vaccine but we'd already be back to normal by the time they do.

No with the way the government has been fear mongering about the virus we won't return to normal until the vaccine programme has been completed. People are afraid of their own shadows at the moment.

I don't agree. Many young people are scared of infecting their loved ones - "don't kill your grandparents".

As far as I'm concerned once the vulnerable have been vaccinated I'm eager to get back to normal. I don't care about myself, I just don't want my grandparents to get it.

The problem is that even if only 25% of people are afraid of their own shadows then the economy will not return to anything like normal. A national vaccination programme and a study for vaccines in kids is the only way to resolve this. We can't run an economy without everyone participating in full.

I think you're being overly pessimistic. Once we've vaccinated the vulnerable deaths could drop to zero at which point it ceases to be a major news story. A lot of young people already want to get back to normal, give it another six months plus their grandparents have been vaccinated and you're not going to stop them getting back to normal whether you want to or not.

Younger people sure, but everyone between 40 and 50? That's a pretty risk averse group, especially parents of children who won't be vaccinated.

I'm turning into a fan of Douglas Ross.

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1313478463760855042

kinabalu said:

Yep, looking good.

And if I could pose a question to the group of posters (I think you know who you are) who are both keen punters and share my view that Trump will lose and it won't be close -

What iyo is a Fair Value sell price for Biden EC supremacy right now?

You need to stop wibbling about your bet.

Never close out, that`s my rule. But remind me what your bet is and on which market specifically - and what it is currently trading at.

RobD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Coronavirus outbreak at Nottingham University as 425 students and eight staff test positive as city ‘days’ from lockdown

Why not just lock down the university?

Should have told anyone who wasn't worried about catching the virus to come early and stay in the Halls, have one big Freshers party. Treat it like Big Brother - we'll supply food and alcohol, only rule is you can't get out.

I suspect their lawyers would have fainted at the prospect! Not everyone is impervious at that age, unfortunately.

What risk would you be prepared to accept? I haven't got the latest numbers in front of me, but the number of healthy under 20s in England who have died of Covid-19 stood, on 19 August, as four.

Not four thousand.

Not four hundred.

Not forty.

Four.

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

This struck me as interesting - "LPF and governance" - not "Fish" - and from reports the UK has been unclear on "LPF and governance" beyond "trust us" - which is brave under the circumstances....

https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1313448603319521280?s=20

It all seems to be boiling down to LPF.

I think the rest of the EU have told the French to shut up about Fish, so we will get our way on that, probably with a transition.

I assume LPF doesn't mean Low Pass Filter, Lothian Pension Fund or Libertarian Party of Florida.

Peter_the_Punter said:

@kinabalu - fpt, enquiry about ECV Supremacy Market

Can't do any better than use 538s suggestion. That reckons 338/200 to Biden so a supremacy of 138. I'd round that down to 100 for MoE which is still 14 points above Biden's buy price of 86.

Personally I bought in much lower than that (hat-tip Richard Nabavi) but I'd be happy to buy in again at 86 if Sporting would let me but for some reason the bastards limit strictly the extent to which they're prepared to supplement my pension.

Subject to all the usual caveats (spread betting is reisky etc) I'd suggest you calculate the maximum loss you could bear without becoming suicidal and figure out what stake would lose you that if you finished 200 points down. Then buy for that stake. (E.g. if you can bear to lose £1,000 your stake should be £5 per point.)

I know the risks of spread betting and have been burned myself from time to time, but I think the downside risks here are low because of the extreme improbability of a Trump landslide. It's for that reason I have maxed out on this market.

Hope that helps. Good luck.

Good post.

If you agree that should Trump win it will be by a very narrow margin, Betfair`s "Trump Electoral College Votes" market at 270 -299 has Trump at 7.4 which would be a good insurance bet. (I think another poster mentioned this a couple of weeks back.)

Anabobazina said:

The policy of rolling out a scarce resource (vaccine) to those in most need (the eldery and infirm) seems like the right one to me.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Doesn't make sense to me, I'd want the elderly and infirm to benefit from herd immunity.

TheScreamingEagles said:

UK government urged to classify leisure centres 'essential' or face mass closures

Gyms and swimming pools also threatened by Covid pandemic

UK Active chief says centres are vital to public health

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/06/government-urged-to-classify-leisure-centres-swimming-pools-gyms-essential-or-face-mass-closures-covid

Johnson's crusade against Obesity going well then

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

This struck me as interesting - "LPF and governance" - not "Fish" - and from reports the UK has been unclear on "LPF and governance" beyond "trust us" - which is brave under the circumstances....

https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1313448603319521280?s=20

It all seems to be boiling down to LPF.

I think the rest of the EU have told the French to shut up about Fish, so we will get our way on that, probably with a transition.

The French may also have been bought off with a promise for a favourable deal at the next Common Fisheries Policy quota negotiations, or something else.

There's always been the potential for different EU countries to use the Brexit negotiations as leverage in internal EU disputes. They've done surprisingly well to avoid that so far, or at least to avoid it becoming public.

But it's a 2020 sort of way that talks might be derailed at the last moment.

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Another very interesting editorial by Osborne:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/coronaviris-vaccine-political-bombshell-george-osborne-a4564456.html

No, it's not really. The government will push a national vaccination scheme for everyone over the age of 18. Not vaccinating 18-50 year olds will have a huge economic cost because it will take years for this cohort to acquire herd immunity and for life to resume as normal. A vaccine is a shortcut to a resumption of non distanced life, why buy 120m doses of we're only going to use half of them (two doses per person).

Quite rightly care workers and the vulnerable will get the vaccine first, as they should, then we will get back to normal.

Healthy young adults will eventually get the vaccine but we'd already be back to normal by the time they do.

No with the way the government has been fear mongering about the virus we won't return to normal until the vaccine programme has been completed. People are afraid of their own shadows at the moment.

I don't agree. Many young people are scared of infecting their loved ones - "don't kill your grandparents".

As far as I'm concerned once the vulnerable have been vaccinated I'm eager to get back to normal. I don't care about myself, I just don't want my grandparents to get it.

Is "back to normal" for you even more time as a keyboard warrior on PB or less? 😂😂😂

Interesting editorial by Osborne today. The lack of a rebuttal by the government is notable. Makes me wonder if Kate Bingham knows something about the potential side effects of a vaccine that we don't.

Even if from a pure cost-benefit pov, universal immunisation isn't worth doing the psychological effect for the general population of a vaccine for everyone not being around the corner is potentially very high. Especially as politics and the media are doing their best to scare/guilt younger people into compliances with tales of long Covid etc (noticed another one on the BBC homepage today) - which no doubt are accurate, but not representative of a typical experience for a younger person.

Hello,

Still

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

The policy of rolling out a scarce resource (vaccine) to those in most need (the eldery and infirm) seems like the right one to me.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Doesn't make sense to me, I'd want the elderly and infirm to benefit from herd immunity.

Wouldn't we get there anyway, if younger fitter people are encouraged to mix freely?

More slowly and with a lot of economic damage in the process. We're storing up a lot of long term issues at the moment with unemployment, problems that will have a large longer term cost than a few old people dying a few months early, to put it bluntly.

Fair enough. Perhaps they could allow those under 50 to apply, being clear that it's first-come-first-served, which would at least reduce some of the political risk ("we have been clear from the start that healthy under-50s are not a priority group for the treatment").

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Hello,

Still

Hello old bean.

guybrush said:

Interesting editorial by Osborne today. The lack of a rebuttal by the government is notable. Makes me wonder if Kate Bingham knows something about the potential side effects of a vaccine that we don't.

Even if from a pure cost-benefit pov, universal immunisation isn't worth doing the psychological effect for the general population of a vaccine for everyone not being around the corner is potentially very high. Especially as politics and the media are doing their best to scare/guilt younger people into compliances with tales of long Covid etc (noticed another one on the BBC homepage today) - which no doubt are accurate, but not representative of a typical experience for a younger person.

Matt Hancock refuted it pretty much immediately, the current plan is to vaccinate everyone over the age of 18.

CarlottaVance said:

Philip_Thompson said:

CarlottaVance said:

This struck me as interesting - "LPF and governance" - not "Fish" - and from reports the UK has been unclear on "LPF and governance" beyond "trust us" - which is brave under the circumstances....

https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1313448603319521280?s=20

It all seems to be boiling down to LPF.

I think the rest of the EU have told the French to shut up about Fish, so we will get our way on that, probably with a transition.

The mystery is why the UK government has not been able to come forward with a State Aid regime and governance mechanism. "Trust us" has demonstrably failed, and for good reason.

Because we don't need one. It's an egregious demand from EU.

HYUFD said:

OnboardG1 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm turning into a fan of Douglas Ross.

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1313478463760855042

He's going to end up with a Ruth Davidson problem. He's not going to be able to save the Scottish Tories because Johnson insists on shitting in his cornflakes every morning, but he's going to struggle to get back into Westminster politics even if he does as good a job as he can in the circumstances.

That depends, if Douglas Ross leads Unionists to a majority at Holyrood next year and Sturgeon loses her majority he will be the greatest Scottish Tory leader in history and worthy of a knighthood if not more.

Of course part of that would be winning the Moray seat at Holyrood held by the SNP but which he holds at Westminster

Hillary Clinton has more chance of being the President.

The distribution policy should depend on the characteristics of the vaccine. From the long twitter thread that was posted here a while ago these could vary quite markedly.

Some of the vaccines will be less effective in the elderly. Some might protect against lung damage, but not prevent transmission. Some may have serious side effects.

The worst thing we could do now would be to come up with a rigid plan for an idealised vaccine and then stick to that plan when it doesn't fit the first vaccine that becomes available.

MaxPB said:

guybrush said:

Interesting editorial by Osborne today. The lack of a rebuttal by the government is notable. Makes me wonder if Kate Bingham knows something about the potential side effects of a vaccine that we don't.

Even if from a pure cost-benefit pov, universal immunisation isn't worth doing the psychological effect for the general population of a vaccine for everyone not being around the corner is potentially very high. Especially as politics and the media are doing their best to scare/guilt younger people into compliances with tales of long Covid etc (noticed another one on the BBC homepage today) - which no doubt are accurate, but not representative of a typical experience for a younger person.

Matt Hancock refuted it pretty much immediately, the current plan is to vaccinate everyone over the age of 18.

Fair enough, need to pay more attention!

Left wing blog applauds exports and jobs success.....

https://twitter.com/LeftFootFwd/status/1313482929817948170?s=20

Pro_Rata said:

The university outbreaks leave me wondering whether the Risk Segmentation advocates had it backwards. Not, lock up your old but lock up your young, as PT suggests.

In hindsight perhaps we could have thrown a ring round and effectively campus-ised even city based universities: healthy - come along; young & shielding - here is our remote offer; home based - we have an accommodation deal this year only if you want, lecturing - let the early courses be done by the younger, healthier academics and structure remote/onsite accordingly, and isolate those guys after work; similarly student only bars/Tesco Metros staffed accordingly. With lots and lots of advanced thought and planning it is a segmentation strategy that might have had some degree of success.

In London?

Pro_Rata said:

The university outbreaks leave me wondering whether the Risk Segmentation advocates had it backwards. Not, lock up your old but lock up your young, as PT suggests.

In hindsight perhaps we could have thrown a ring round and effectively campus-ised even city based universities: healthy - come along; young & shielding - here is our remote offer; home based - we have an accommodation deal this year only if you want, lecturing - let the early courses be done by the younger, healthier academics and structure remote/onsite accordingly, and isolate those guys after work; similarly student only bars/Tesco Metros staffed accordingly. With lots and lots of advanced thought and planning it is a segmentation strategy that might have had some degree of success.

Daughter's fresher friends are in lockdown or self-isolating all over the shop - Edinburgh, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham and latest reports being Warwick, Bristol and Durham. Oxbridge of course only now starting term (tho Brookes was early on) too. It just seems to be 'working out' that all these young folk will be getting it whilst away from their older relatives... The fact anyone is surprised this is happening is hard to understand.

Has anyone seen any evidence of Trump getting any sympathy for having Covid, such as was offered to our own Bullshitter-In-Chief?

MaxPB said:

Anabobazina said:

The policy of rolling out a scarce resource (vaccine) to those in most need (the eldery and infirm) seems like the right one to me.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Doesn't make sense to me, I'd want the elderly and infirm to benefit from herd immunity.

That won't happen until there's an under 18 vaccine. So we need another solution first.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Hello,

Still

Hello old bean.

I see PB fantasy league is worth looking at again.... after losing to the Toffees, I was thinking everything about footie was going to be a write off this year..... and now 'arry rednapp is tipping us for the league (I think not)!

I told you Jose Mourinho is awesome, have faith in Jose, he brought back Bale.

Plus season is a year that ends in one, so 'Arry might not be wrong.

Am backing Everton in the hope of the curse of Eagles strikes again.