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

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

IIRC correctly, he didn't enter a Catholic church, for a friends funeral. Instead he stood by the graveside.

Even though the actual lowering of the coffin wasn't accompanied by any religious stuff, the Wee Free held that he had attended a gathering officiated by a Catholic priest......

As an old Irish friend used to say - "Wankuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurs"

538 now have Biden 90 Trump 10

I told you Trump is going to be negative before the campaign is over.

Andy_JS said:

There's nothing wrong with saying "We have to lean to live with Covid". Twitter has lost the plot.

It's for lying about flu deaths, I would think, not saying we have to learn to live with Covid.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

You're forgetting that a lot of the members of that particular Free Church [there are several] were so unhappy with the affair, partly over the liberty of conscience issue, that it led to a split in that kirk. Never mind what many Scots more generally thought.

I still can't get my head around that some people thought going to a Catholic funeral was a great sin worthy of excommunication.

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

contrarian said:

538 now have Biden 90 Trump 10

I told you Trump is going to be negative before the campaign is over.

It seems I am wrong but its my fault for quoting Dan effing Hodges

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

You're forgetting that a lot of the members of that particular Free Church [there are several] were so unhappy with the affair, partly over the liberty of conscience issue, that it led to a split in that kirk. Never mind what many Scots more generally thought.

I still can't get my head around that some people thought going to a Catholic funeral was a great sin worthy of excommunication.

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

Of course Catholic priests will only give communion to confirmed Catholics anyway

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

not_on_fire said:

Remember how @MrEd told us to watch where the campaigns were focusing their efforts?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1313491056118444033?s=20

No doubt this favours Trump though, somehow.

Biden flailing throwing money at longshots because he needs a miracle.

Watching where people throw money has always seemed an odd premise, predicated as it is on the idea campaigns surely know better than we do what the situation is, which strikes me as unlikely. When they get it right it's probably just chance.

In this case it may well be the Biden camp has money to burn, so Texas is as good a place as any to do so. In terms of winning the Presidency, it's unimportant. If Texas does flip, he's already home and dry. The bragging rights are colossal though.

Texas is getting Bluer by the year. Putting effort into Texas forces Trump to put more in - and I believe Biden has a full war chest, and the Trump campaign doesn't.

Even if he doesn't win Texas, the effort will help Democratic candidates for office within the state and build good will with the party there.

It's not inevitable that continues forever though.

I expect Texas will end up much like Florida - as a key swing state.

Indeed which will really put the GOP on the backfoot and remove the Electoral College bias to the GOP.

If Puerto Rico and DC become States too then that would remove the Senate bias too.

Suddenly America's electoral system would be back in rough balance.

Casino_Royale said:

Casino_Royale said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Casino_Royale said:

I can't stand it anymore.

I've chucked another big one on Biden.

Sporting Index have upped the Bided ECV spread again - it's now 310/316.

Just how much did you have on?

I bought at £10 a point at 285.

I also have 1.5k on exchange on Biden.

I was jesting. One does not normally ask fellow punters to publicly disclose the size of their bets, but since you have volunteered I suppose I should tell you my stakes are almost identical.

I still think the best bet out there is the simple and straightforward Dems to win on Betfair at 1.53. Should be 1.25 imo. I'm maxed out now though and plan to just sit and watch whilst offering up the occasional prayer for the health of the principals (to which the welfare of my bank account is closely wedded.)

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

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.

Not sure I quite go with that rule but Ok I wibble no more. We're sorted. Kenny agrees that we stick at this point. He says the price is still too low and iho Texas is going. And he should know -

https://youtu.be/7hx4gdlfamo

rationale below at 3:36

No I do get it. And the point is a good one. But you don't mean NEVER close. Say you buy something because you think it's underpriced and then having held it for a bit it goes iyo well overpriced. You sell it.

If you think it is overpriced then consider it a new bet (that just happens to be a close) not closing it.

Yes I think we are all on the same page.

Now then, "Boris", I missed his speech. Was it one of his best iyo? Did he rise to the occasion?

No and yes. His speech was fitting for the occasion, I wouldn't expect it to be one of his best in these circumstances.

Ok, so he didn't rise to the occasion but neither did he let himself and everybody who believes in him down.

Can we coalesce around this wording?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1313519919493980161

Drakeford is the disgrace

He has closed down Llandudno and yet allows English visitors to pass through the 4 border counties and holiday in Gwynedd

contrarian said:

contrarian said:

538 now have Biden 90 Trump 10

I told you Trump is going to be negative before the campaign is over.

It seems I am wrong but its my fault for quoting Dan effing Hodges

82-17 is their latest.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

You're forgetting that a lot of the members of that particular Free Church [there are several] were so unhappy with the affair, partly over the liberty of conscience issue, that it led to a split in that kirk. Never mind what many Scots more generally thought.

I still can't get my head around that some people thought going to a Catholic funeral was a great sin worthy of excommunication.

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

Of course Catholic priests will only give communion to confirmed Catholics anyway

Not true. You take your first communion long before you are confirmed.
I did. I've never been confirmed.

Testing

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do wonder about the quality of history teachers at Eton and the dump.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1313428641875886081

Edit - Technically I can think of one successful bona fide invasion 954 years ago.

In fairness he did read classics* at Balliol, and the Romans rather lost interest in Britannia about 656 years before that occasion.

*Edit: I know, I know, Greats, but one has to be comprehensible.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do wonder about the quality of history teachers at Eton and the dump.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1313428641875886081

Edit - Technically I can think of one successful bona fide invasion 954 years ago.

I think that attempted criticism is pretty darn weak, to be honest. As the crowning moment (ahem) of parliamentary sovereignty, plenty of people hardly count William of Orange as an alien invader, and probably even more so among people who are actual parliamentarians.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I presume they will claim it is because 100k is not an accurate statistic....but if they are going to censor every tweet with incorrect data, christ the volume of tweets will be down by a half at least.

Trump reaches a vast and gullible audience so it is imo correct to apply a stricter standard to him than to your average Joe. Although not the actual Joe, of course, who should be held to the same.

Peter_the_Punter said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

not_on_fire said:

Remember how @MrEd told us to watch where the campaigns were focusing their efforts?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1313491056118444033?s=20

No doubt this favours Trump though, somehow.

Biden flailing throwing money at longshots because he needs a miracle.

Watching where people throw money has always seemed an odd premise, predicated as it is on the idea campaigns surely know better than we do what the situation is, which strikes me as unlikely. When they get it right it's probably just chance.

In this case it may well be the Biden camp has money to burn, so Texas is as good a place as any to do so. In terms of winning the Presidency, it's unimportant. If Texas does flip, he's already home and dry. The bragging rights are colossal though.

[.. checks spread bet.. checks the number of ECVs Texas accounts for...] I must say I think it's really smart of the Biden campaign to put effort into Texas.

contrarian said:

contrarian said:

538 now have Biden 90 Trump 10

I told you Trump is going to be negative before the campaign is over.

It seems I am wrong but its my fault for quoting Dan effing Hodges

Anybody can make a mistake, but quoting DH is a banishment offence - to ConHome in the more serious cases. However I take it you are a first-timer....?

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do wonder about the quality of history teachers at Eton and the dump.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1313428641875886081

Edit - Technically I can think of one successful bona fide invasion 954 years ago.

In fairness he did read classics* at Balliol, and the Romans rather lost interest in Britannia about 656 years before that occasion.

*Edit: I know, I know, Greats, but one has to be comprehensible.

I did think about reading literae humaniores but I didn't fancy a teaching career.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1313519919493980161

Drakeford is the disgrace

He has closed down Llandudno and yet allows English visitors to pass through the 4 border counties and holiday in Gwynedd

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1313519919493980161

Drakeford is the disgrace

He has closed down Llandudno and yet allows English visitors to pass through the 4 border counties and holiday in Gwynedd

On my way back to lockdown Wales from working in Covid-free Hampshire. Will they let me back in?

Gallowgate said:

DAlexander said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

There's nothing wrong with saying "We have to lean to live with Covid". Twitter has lost the plot.

It's for lying about flu deaths, I would think, not saying we have to learn to live with Covid.

How many people do you think die of flu every year globally?

Why don’t you tell us.

"Until recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the annual mortality burden of influenza to be 250 000 to 500 000 all-cause deaths globally; however, a 2017 study indicated a substantially higher mortality burden, at 290 000-650 000 influenza-associated deaths from respiratory causes alone, and a 2019 study estimated 99 000-200 000 deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly caused by influenza."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

not_on_fire said:

Remember how @MrEd told us to watch where the campaigns were focusing their efforts?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1313491056118444033?s=20

No doubt this favours Trump though, somehow.

Biden flailing throwing money at longshots because he needs a miracle.

Watching where people throw money has always seemed an odd premise, predicated as it is on the idea campaigns surely know better than we do what the situation is, which strikes me as unlikely. When they get it right it's probably just chance.

In this case it may well be the Biden camp has money to burn, so Texas is as good a place as any to do so. In terms of winning the Presidency, it's unimportant. If Texas does flip, he's already home and dry. The bragging rights are colossal though.

Texas is getting Bluer by the year. Putting effort into Texas forces Trump to put more in - and I believe Biden has a full war chest, and the Trump campaign doesn't.

Even if he doesn't win Texas, the effort will help Democratic candidates for office within the state and build good will with the party there.

It's not inevitable that continues forever though.

I expect Texas will end up much like Florida - as a key swing state.

Indeed which will really put the GOP on the backfoot and remove the Electoral College bias to the GOP.

If Puerto Rico and DC become States too then that would remove the Senate bias too.

Suddenly America's electoral system would be back in rough balance.

I think PR would have a good chance of being a 1 Dem sen 1 GOP sen state.

Oh interesting, why?

I never understood states like that unless there's a large personal vote.

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do wonder about the quality of history teachers at Eton and the dump.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1313428641875886081

Edit - Technically I can think of one successful bona fide invasion 954 years ago.

I think that attempted criticism is pretty darn weak, to be honest. As the crowning moment (ahem) of parliamentary sovereignty, plenty of people hardly count William of Orange as an alien invader, and probably even more so among people who are actual parliamentarians.

Nonsense, the crowning moment of parliamentary sovereignty was the events relating to the trial of King Charles I.

IshmaelZ said:

contrarian said:

kle4 said:

DAlexander said:

contrarian said:

DAlexander said:

contrarian said:

DAlexander said:

FF43 said:

14.5K cases today an doubling, I think, in less than 10 days means Chris Whitty's non-prediction of 50K cases a day in October is quite plausible now

It's March all over again isn't it?

The extra precautions people are taking now are offset by the increased virus transmission during the flu season.

Without a vaccine we're looking at a lockdown every 6 months or so or are going to have to learn to live with the virus.

Lockdown every six months means what for the economy? five, six million unemployed permanently?

Until we can parachute them all into Boris's green jobs, of course.

Well yes I don't agree with the lockdowns, but if we're in the same position as we were in March I can't see why they wouldn't pursue the same policy.

Well I can see why they cannot pursue the came policy

They do not have any money left.

Well quite.

But it shows what a failure the last lockdown was in hindsight if we're back in the exact same position again 6 months later.

It's not the exact same position, yet.

No, its a worse position.

Its worse because a gargantuan amount of resource has gone into 'defeating' something that, in the end, cannot be 'defeated'.

In short, what I have been calling it since March. The worst policy decision by any British government, ever.

We are playing whack a mole: trying to shut down cases on an ad hoc basis and hoping something will turn up. There may have been talk of defeat in March but did anyone seriously buy it? I think everyone here has always taken an autumn upsurge as a given.

Still don't see what else we could have done. Sweden is an illusion: what it did wasn't very different, the results weren't very different, what differences there were, were because it is Sweden not us. Let it rip theory is a non-starter because of the principle: politics is the art of the possible. You just can't do overwhelmed hospitals, let alone mass graves, even if it is in fact the case that they are side effects of a policy which leads to much lower levels of death and harm. People won't have it.

True.

I'm miffed because the "spit test" that was being trialled in June hasn't appeared to be pursued. Twenty minute results and could be mass-produced.

Even if it gave a handful of false negatives - it would still do the job of shoving down spread and allowing some areas to open up with reduced social distancing. Maybe not nightclubs, or concerts, but pubs and restaurants and cinemas could have reopened with reduced social distancing, and it would have helped shove the spread down a long way.

Schools and universities could have benefited from it as well.

The pooled testing approach and backwards tracing to pick up superspreaders - where's the work on this? Instead we get a curfew that appears to have come about because of an argument between Johnson and Sunak, with questionable benefit at best and very possibly negatives in terms of spread.

This is the sort of work to be done on "learning to live with it."

The risk segmentation approach doesn't really work out in practice (we can't separate out the population to the degree we need), but at least it was an attempt to come up with a "To-Be" state that wasn't "let it rip and don't do the arithmetic as to what would happen," which has become strongly associated with the "we'll just have to learn to live with it" crowd.

Or the "let people make their own choices on what risk they'll accept" option, which runs into the intractable problem that with an infectious disease, people end up necessarily making their choices on what risk they'll force others to take.

Fast, ubiquitous, cheap testing.
Pooled testing and backwards tracing.
Identifying the highest dispersion scenarios and avoiding those.

That's the pathway to learning to live with it. The danger is that if things keep going the way they are, the politicians will look at the only thing that correlated with going from rapidly rising to decently descending and re-do it.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

You're forgetting that a lot of the members of that particular Free Church [there are several] were so unhappy with the affair, partly over the liberty of conscience issue, that it led to a split in that kirk. Never mind what many Scots more generally thought.

I still can't get my head around that some people thought going to a Catholic funeral was a great sin worthy of excommunication.

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

Of course Catholic priests will only give communion to confirmed Catholics anyway

I went to a wedding in a Catholic church in Sydney. The Catholic priest explicilty invited everyone who takes communion in any denomination to take communion there.

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

IIRC correctly, he didn't enter a Catholic church, for a friends funeral. Instead he stood by the graveside.

Even though the actual lowering of the coffin wasn't accompanied by any religious stuff, the Wee Free held that he had attended a gathering officiated by a Catholic priest......

As an old Irish friend used to say - "Wankuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurs"

Carnyx said:

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

Thanks.

Seems mind boggling to me.

You could do a mashup of the Four Yorkshiremen and the People Front For the Liberation Of Judea based on the Wee Free.

"I reject Catholicism"

"I rejected Catholicism before Martin Luther"

"I rejected Catholicism before the Council of NIcaea".

"Right.... I rejected Catholicism.... before Christ was born"

"Papist!...."

Brilliant.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do wonder about the quality of history teachers at Eton and the dump.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1313428641875886081

Edit - Technically I can think of one successful bona fide invasion 954 years ago.

Japanese Knott Weed is also an "alien invader" that the UK has not seen off.

kinabalu said:

DAlexander said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

There's nothing wrong with saying "We have to lean to live with Covid". Twitter has lost the plot.

It's for lying about flu deaths, I would think, not saying we have to learn to live with Covid.

How many people do you think die of flu every year globally?

You tell me. But he was talking about USA.

See below.

And he doesn't mention which country he is referring to with the deaths statistic, it could quite easily mean globally before talking about what they should do in the US.

Gallowgate said:

DAlexander said:

Gallowgate said:

DAlexander said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

There's nothing wrong with saying "We have to lean to live with Covid". Twitter has lost the plot.

It's for lying about flu deaths, I would think, not saying we have to learn to live with Covid.

How many people do you think die of flu every year globally?

Why don’t you tell us.

"Until recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the annual mortality burden of influenza to be 250 000 to 500 000 all-cause deaths globally; however, a 2017 study indicated a substantially higher mortality burden, at 290 000-650 000 influenza-associated deaths from respiratory causes alone, and a 2019 study estimated 99 000-200 000 deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly caused by influenza."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/

Right. And COVID-19 has killed over 1,000,000 and counting. So what’s your point?

My point is that Twitter censoring Trump for "lying" for saying that 100,000s die of the flu annually is mental.

Reading the Trump Twitter feed makes me think that he actually believes he is winning.

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kle4 said:

Alistair said:

not_on_fire said:

Remember how @MrEd told us to watch where the campaigns were focusing their efforts?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1313491056118444033?s=20

No doubt this favours Trump though, somehow.

Biden flailing throwing money at longshots because he needs a miracle.

Watching where people throw money has always seemed an odd premise, predicated as it is on the idea campaigns surely know better than we do what the situation is, which strikes me as unlikely. When they get it right it's probably just chance.

In this case it may well be the Biden camp has money to burn, so Texas is as good a place as any to do so. In terms of winning the Presidency, it's unimportant. If Texas does flip, he's already home and dry. The bragging rights are colossal though.

Texas is getting Bluer by the year. Putting effort into Texas forces Trump to put more in - and I believe Biden has a full war chest, and the Trump campaign doesn't.

Even if he doesn't win Texas, the effort will help Democratic candidates for office within the state and build good will with the party there.

It's not inevitable that continues forever though.

I expect Texas will end up much like Florida - as a key swing state.

Indeed which will really put the GOP on the backfoot and remove the Electoral College bias to the GOP.

If Puerto Rico and DC become States too then that would remove the Senate bias too.

Suddenly America's electoral system would be back in rough balance.

I think PR would have a good chance of being a 1 Dem sen 1 GOP sen state.

Oh interesting, why?

I never understood states like that unless there's a large personal vote.

It's socially more Conservative than you may think for what would be a solidly blue state at the Presidential level. Also due to the long time frame on Senators there are a lot of suprisingly split states over the years.

However if the GOP continue to act like complete fucking babies about people getting representation for their taxation they they will make it a solid 2 Dem state.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Latest

Drakeford threatens to close the borders to the English

To people coming from England surely

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

You're forgetting that a lot of the members of that particular Free Church [there are several] were so unhappy with the affair, partly over the liberty of conscience issue, that it led to a split in that kirk. Never mind what many Scots more generally thought.

I still can't get my head around that some people thought going to a Catholic funeral was a great sin worthy of excommunication.

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

Of course Catholic priests will only give communion to confirmed Catholics anyway

I went to a wedding in a Catholic church in Sydney. The Catholic priest explicilty invited everyone who takes communion in any denomination to take communion there.

That’s been the case for forty years across denominations.

This is what Drakeford has done to Llandudno

Ghost town video that shows why Llandudno hotel left considering 'what we will do to survive'

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/ghost-town-video-shows-llandudno-19049255#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare

DAlexander said:

Gallowgate said:

DAlexander said:

Gallowgate said:

DAlexander said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

There's nothing wrong with saying "We have to lean to live with Covid". Twitter has lost the plot.

It's for lying about flu deaths, I would think, not saying we have to learn to live with Covid.

How many people do you think die of flu every year globally?

Why don’t you tell us.

"Until recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the annual mortality burden of influenza to be 250 000 to 500 000 all-cause deaths globally; however, a 2017 study indicated a substantially higher mortality burden, at 290 000-650 000 influenza-associated deaths from respiratory causes alone, and a 2019 study estimated 99 000-200 000 deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly caused by influenza."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/

Right. And COVID-19 has killed over 1,000,000 and counting. So what’s your point?

My point is that Twitter censoring Trump for "lying" for saying that 100,000s die of the flu annually is mental.

Trump only talks about the USA, world statistics are irrelevant to him.

HYUFD said:

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

You're forgetting that a lot of the members of that particular Free Church [there are several] were so unhappy with the affair, partly over the liberty of conscience issue, that it led to a split in that kirk. Never mind what many Scots more generally thought.

I still can't get my head around that some people thought going to a Catholic funeral was a great sin worthy of excommunication.

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

Of course Catholic priests will only give communion to confirmed Catholics anyway

I went to a wedding in a Catholic church in Sydney. The Catholic priest explicilty invited everyone who takes communion in any denomination to take communion there.

He should not have done, Cardinal Basil Hume even had to write to Tony Blair when he tried to take communion with his Cherie, who was Catholic at that time unlike him, to refrain from doing so. The most a Catholic priest should give non Catholics is a blessing.

Pope Francis has tried to compromise a little but has not changed the rules

'Francis on the one hand stressed he would “never dare give permission” but then said it is up to individual consciences to decide.

“It’s true that in a certain sense, to share means that there aren’t differences between us, that we have the same doctrine – underscoring that word, a difficult word to understand.

"But I ask myself: but don’t we have the same Baptism? If we have the same Baptism, shouldn’t we be walking together? And you’re a witness of a likewise profound journey, a journey of marriage: itself a journey of family and human love and of a shared faith, no?

"We have the same Baptism.”

He went on: “The supper? There are questions that only if one is sincere with oneself and the little theological light one has, must be responded to on one’s own. See for yourself. This is my body. This is my blood. Do it in remembrance of me – this is a viaticum that helps us to journey on.

Finally, the Pope added: “I can only respond to your question with a question: what can I do with my husband that the Lord’s Supper might accompany me on my path? It’s a problem to which everyone must respond,” he said. “a pastor-friend once told me that ‘We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present’ – you believe that the Lord is present. And what's the difference? There are explanations, interpretations, but life is bigger than explanations and interpretations.”
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/877/has-pope-francis-just-opened-a-door-for-non-catholics-to-receive-communion-

My wife and I were invited in an open invitation to take communion in Amalfi and this is Italy

Going back to Texas: On the mid-prices Betfair has Biden winning the presidency at a probability of 64%, and the probability of him winning Texas at 26%. Since we can discount the possibility of him winning Texas but not the presidency, that implies the following probabilities:

Biden gets to 270: 64%
Biden wins the presidency but doesn't win Texas: 38%
Biden wins the presidency and wins Texas: 26%

Now, dunno about you, but to me that looks inconsistent. The 26% represented by scenarios which include Texas is too high relative to the 38% of a Biden win without Texas.

If I'm right, then either the 64% presidential win is too low, or the 26% Texas win is too high, or both. My gut feel is both, which would mean that betting on Biden to become president and Trump to retain Texas would be a good combination (you're likely to win both, and can't realistically lose both), or, perhaps even better, offset a spread bet on Biden with a bet on Trump retaining Texas. After all, if he wins Texas you've just won 38 points on your spread bet, so you won't be too sorry at losing the fixed-odds bet of Trump retaining it.

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with several of the Pentagon’s most senior uniformed leaders, are quarantining after being exposed to the coronavirus, a Defense Department official said on Tuesday.

The official said almost the entirety of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Gen. James C. McConville, the Army chief of staff, are quarantining after Adm. Charles Ray, the vice commandant of the Coast Guard, tested positive for coronavirus.

The announcement represents an alarming development — as the virus extends its reach from the highest levels of civilian government to the operational heart of the country’s national security apparatus.

Admiral Ray was in the Pentagon last week, attending meetings in the secure “Tank” with General Milley and the senior Pentagon uniformed leadership. Defense Department officials said the decision to quarantine complied with Defense Department guidelines established by the Centers for Disease Control.

General Milley and a number of senior Defense Department officials have also been getting tested frequently since last Sunday, when many of the Pentagon’s senior leadership attended a White House reception for “Gold Star” families of fallen troops. Both Mr. Trump and Melania Trump, the first lady, were at that event.

The reaction at the Pentagon to the possible exposure of senior military leaders to coronavirus stands in contrast to the White House, where Mr. Trump has flouted the same guidelines established by the C.D.C. that the Pentagon is following.

White House officials, citing national security concerns, last weekend told Defense Department officials that they should no longer inform the public or the press about the coronavirus status of senior Pentagon leaders. But Defense Department officials have questioned the directive.

General Milley, 62, was appointed to his post as the most senior member of the military on December 8, 2018, by Mr. Trump. He was present in Lafayette Square on June 1, when law enforcement officers tear-gassed peaceful demonstrators protesting police violence.

https://tinyurl.com/yyjh9d76

https://twitter.com/fifisyms/status/1313529817493647361

https://twitter.com/DArcyTiP/status/1313530035882557444

DAlexander said:

kinabalu said:

DAlexander said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

There's nothing wrong with saying "We have to lean to live with Covid". Twitter has lost the plot.

It's for lying about flu deaths, I would think, not saying we have to learn to live with Covid.

How many people do you think die of flu every year globally?

You tell me. But he was talking about USA.

See below.

And he doesn't mention which country he is referring to with the deaths statistic, it could quite easily mean globally before talking about what they should do in the US.

Oh come on, your shirt's hanging out. He was talking about America. Of course he was.

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.

And screw the potential for long-term heart damage?

kle4 said:

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I am right in thinking it is only the UK and Iran that have unelected clergy in their Parliaments?

And an appallingly unrepresentative selection, both in terms of geography and of belief (and lack of), of the UK. If you are a Free Churcher in Lewis, or a Quaker in Somerset, hard luck.

It's not the real parliament, though. I imagine that bigass quakers get peerages on an ad hoc basis anyway and that the Free Church would turn them down on principle.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free until he very correctly told them where to stick it. Of course his ennoblement had not much to do with his religion.

That was when he was told not to attend the funerals of some Catholic colleagues and friends?

God bless sectarianism, it stops Scots being racist, they don't have the time.

You're forgetting that a lot of the members of that particular Free Church [there are several] were so unhappy with the affair, partly over the liberty of conscience issue, that it led to a split in that kirk. Never mind what many Scots more generally thought.

I still can't get my head around that some people thought going to a Catholic funeral was a great sin worthy of excommunication.

Wasn't the funeral bit that was the problem (AIUI) - it was the mass. Transsubstantiation is a big no-no, for instance, in Presbyterianism.

Of course Catholic priests will only give communion to confirmed Catholics anyway

I went to a wedding in a Catholic church in Sydney. The Catholic priest explicilty invited everyone who takes communion in any denomination to take communion there.

Local priests not being super attached to every bit of liturgical dogma doesn't seem surprising.

I was once offered communion.

I declined.

eristdoof said:

DAlexander said:

Gallowgate said:

DAlexander said:

Gallowgate said:

DAlexander said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

There's nothing wrong with saying "We have to lean to live with Covid". Twitter has lost the plot.

It's for lying about flu deaths, I would think, not saying we have to learn to live with Covid.

How many people do you think die of flu every year globally?

Why don’t you tell us.

"Until recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated the annual mortality burden of influenza to be 250 000 to 500 000 all-cause deaths globally; however, a 2017 study indicated a substantially higher mortality burden, at 290 000-650 000 influenza-associated deaths from respiratory causes alone, and a 2019 study estimated 99 000-200 000 deaths from lower respiratory tract infections directly caused by influenza."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815659/

Right. And COVID-19 has killed over 1,000,000 and counting. So what’s your point?

My point is that Twitter censoring Trump for "lying" for saying that 100,000s die of the flu annually is mental.

Trump only talks about the USA, world statistics are irrelevant to him.

And if it were global it would be a lowball not an exaggeration. Really does fail the logic test on every level. Trumpsters seem to lack basic faculties.

contrarian said:

kle4 said:

DAlexander said:

contrarian said:

DAlexander said:

contrarian said:

DAlexander said:

FF43 said:

14.5K cases today an doubling, I think, in less than 10 days means Chris Whitty's non-prediction of 50K cases a day in October is quite plausible now

It's March all over again isn't it?

The extra precautions people are taking now are offset by the increased virus transmission during the flu season.

Without a vaccine we're looking at a lockdown every 6 months or so or are going to have to learn to live with the virus.

Lockdown every six months means what for the economy? five, six million unemployed permanently?

Until we can parachute them all into Boris's green jobs, of course.

Well yes I don't agree with the lockdowns, but if we're in the same position as we were in March I can't see why they wouldn't pursue the same policy.

Well I can see why they cannot pursue the came policy

They do not have any money left.

Well quite.

But it shows what a failure the last lockdown was in hindsight if we're back in the exact same position again 6 months later.

It's not the exact same position, yet.

No, its a worse position.

Its worse because a gargantuan amount of resource has gone into 'defeating' something that, in the end, cannot be 'defeated'.

In short, what I have been calling it since March. The worst policy decision by any British government, ever.

'Worst policy decision' ever?

The reality is that there is no "defeating", there is "managing". And if you do nothing (as happened in NYC or Milan at the start of the outbreak), then you end up with hospitals overflowing and the dead piling up and ambulances through the night.

Now, would we have done better following the Swedish model - probably. But it's hard to see that would have been very different. Their economy did worse than their neighbours, and resulted in a higher death rate, and they're now implementing what look pretty much like local lockdowns in Stockholm.

The right policy, throughout, has been not to "let it rip", because the reality is that human beings will end up de facto locking down anyway (and that will be worse than simply managing it), but to find the right mix of policies that limit its spread. I've enumerated them on here many times before, but it's not complex: you ban the highest risk activities, and you implement sensible precautions on others such as masks on public transport.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Going back to Texas: On the mid-prices Betfair has Biden winning the presidency at a probability of 64%, and the probability of him winning Texas at 26%. Since we can discount the possibility of him winning Texas but not the presidency, that implies the following probabilities:

Biden gets to 270: 64%
Biden wins the presidency but doesn't win Texas: 38%
Biden wins the presidency and wins Texas: 26%

Now, dunno about you, but to me that looks inconsistent. The 26% represented by scenarios which include Texas is too high relative to the 38% of a Biden win without Texas.

If I'm right, then either the 64% presidential win is too low, or the 26% Texas win is too high, or both. My gut feel is both, which would mean that betting on Biden to become president and Trump to retain Texas would be a good combination (you're likely to win both, and can't realistically lose both), or, perhaps even better, offset a spread bet on Biden with a bet on Trump retaining Texas. After all, if he wins Texas you've just won 38 points on your spread bet, so you won't be too sorry at losing the fixed-odds bet of Trump retaining it.

Nice one. I like Trump Florida as a bet and (potential) hedge. I can see Florida being his Putney. It's an odd state and I sense it might behave against the tide. I can see big Biden win without Florida, so you win both. And if Trump loses Florida it's likely you have landslide.

Trump still on a twitter ramage.