I'd like to see the new case numbers broken down by setting - hospital, care home, community, university. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of new cases right now were actually coming from universities, the government needs to be much more upfront with the data because we could be in a situation where Scotland is closing for business because students in Glasgow and Edinburgh are catching it at a very fast rate, but the wider community might not be. These decisions being made on overall case numbers makes absolutely no sense at all.
Dunno if it is students now in Scotland. Travelling Tabby has today's cases as age group 15-19 at 120, 20-24 at 113, 25-44 at 344 and 45-64 at 301.
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I've backed Trump 270-289 as discussed this morning yet have no bets on Big Joe.
That all said, I intend to do so at some point, just trying to work out the sweet spot for value and that's not now I don't think.
The time to back the Dems was back when they were @2.5 earlier this year.
Some of my bets on Biden were at 23/1, admittedly some time ago.
Unless you let rip, more stringent restrictions are the only alternative. The ones we have aren't working. There is no other way to square the circle.
Sure there is. You isolate the people who are infectious, or that you reasonably suspect might be infectious.
This involves rigorous, detailed work. It has to be done quickly. It involves lots of people in local areas who have the trust of the people in those areas, so that the public will cooperate.
Cannot see we have the manpower for any of that at short notice. Neither for the tracing nor enforcement. Nor do we have the sick pay to incentivise those isolating. The summer was the time for putting such systems in place, but we chose a confected row with Brussels instead.
Certainly it would have been better to do that in the summer (or earlier), but if the best time to do something was yesterday, the second best time is today.
We could have another grim, fractious six months and wish that we'd done better work on a test, trace and isolate system in the autumn.
All the talk of how well New Zealand have done. I actually think Australia is far more impressive. They are a large country, lots of travel from all around the world, especially to and from China, and have several very large dense cities.
And the most recent outbreak was due to something outside of the government control i.e. security staff bonking hotel guests. The logic was sound of ensuring arrivals quarantine.
Other countries have also done well.
The nonsense that the only way to avoid our current purgatory is by giving up and stoically accepting tens, or hundreds, of thousands more dead is dangerous. We can do better.
I don't think SK-levels of surveillance would go down all that well.
I don't think SK-levels of surveillance are a necessary condition for a successful test, trace and isolate scheme. I find it hard to believe that it should be beyond the collective capabilities of democracies to devise such a system.
South Korea is a democracy, as are Taiwan, New Zealand and some other countries that have done reasonably well in suppressing the virus. They have done well because they have been transparent with their populations that if you want to live something like a normal life, not be killed and not trash your economy, you have to have some discipline, and that applies to everyone.
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I'm backing him to win. Because I think people let their dislike of him interfere with their analysis of election factors.
What percentage chance would you put for a Trump win at this point in time?
First off I have really not taken a keen interest or paid much attention to the minutiae of the US election. It is a land far away and I couldn't give a rat's arse who might do well in Ohio.
However, Trump is an incumbent who, wall aside, has delivered a lot of what he promised to the American electorate (I understand).
He is also an odious arse but if peoples' stomachs are full, and they know that the person in the White House is going to fight for them, then that is a pretty compelling reason to keep him there.
Just like the 2019 GE where I backed Cons OM for 60-90 seats because just about everything that contributed to Corbyn's performance in 2017 was in the price and I couldn't see an incremental increase from there, so I think Trump is a known quantity and everything negative is pretty much out there so there is no reason for him to take a tremendous dip.
But as I said, I know nothing about US politics analytically, that's just my gut feel.
America is difficult to poll. Republican America, especially, given its demographics and the stigma of being a trump supporter in some quarters.
Add to that the visceral, extreme and total hatred of the media for Trump. I mean they have disliked republican presidents in the past. But Trump is at a complete other level. Even Fox have only one or two pro-Trump presenters.
As a polling company in the pay of the media, its just too easy to serve up good polls for Biden. If he loses, so what.
Imagine serving up a bad poll for the man three weeks out and Biden wins anyway. A whole day of awkward coverage for a man the presenters simply cannot, cannot even abide. Even bear thinking about.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
BUT THEY DON'T SOCIALISE IN LOCKDOWN EITHER!
Jeez Louise.
Yes the only way to stop them from socialising is having a lockdown.
If there's no lockdown, they will socialise.
Pay them lots of money not to. It's cheaper than lockdown.
How much? How much will you pay them not to socialise? Remembering that it is 1.5 million people we are talking about, how much do you think it is appropriate to pay someone not to socialise while everyone else can?
And does that extend to their partners and children and family and friends too? How would it work?
I'm not trying to be awkward, if you've got an answer I'd love to hear it. It just seems to me to be implausible.
How does an extra £10k sound, tax free. With the 1.5m number (which is actually closer to 1m) that's £15bn, the cost of lockdown is 20x that figure.
Cool, now we're getting somewhere.
Now does that just apply to those working in the sector? What about their children or husbands etc that they live with? What restrictions will you apply for that £10k, will a carer still be able to go for a coffee and a chat with her sister (who was at the pub last Friday) or complete lockdown?
The bonus is for separation, you get it to not socialise so no coffees, no pub, no restaurants. It isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with assistance for school age children of them or some kind of package for spouses. I mean even another £10k isn't out of the question for couples. We're talking about the difference between life continuing basically as normal for everyone else and a tiny economic hit for the cost of maybe £40-50bn if it's very generous or a repeat of what we already had which will cost £300bn once we're counted everything up.
Isn't it something worth looking at, at least?
Exactly.
Because the alternative is full lockdown when no one gets to do any of that stuff.
OK then the question is for how long and that is pertinent. Perhaps we wait for a vaccine, perhaps the virus just dwindles of its own accord. And it is also a tough ask because you are saying to a cohort (1.5m strong AAUI from @Philip_Thompson) you must give up certain activities.
But at the right price there will be takers. Which may or may not be the time to mention immigration.
Must be an awful lot of SNP voters having second thoughts today. An independent Scotland will be a truly miserable place.
Fear not, it'll be blamed on Westminster.
There was some idiot on the radio this morning criticising Boris* for how Scotland had come out of lockdown and the consequent rise in virus cases, which of course was the decision of the Scottish government.
* He has plently to answer for as it is, there's no need for adding things he didn't do to the pile.
All the talk of how well New Zealand have done. I actually think Australia is far more impressive. They are a large country, lots of travel from all around the world, especially to and from China, and have several very large dense cities.
And the most recent outbreak was due to something outside of the government control i.e. security staff bonking hotel guests. The logic was sound of ensuring arrivals quarantine.
Other countries have also done well.
The nonsense that the only way to avoid our current purgatory is by giving up and stoically accepting tens, or hundreds, of thousands more dead is dangerous. We can do better.
I don't think SK-levels of surveillance would go down all that well.
I don't think SK-levels of surveillance are a necessary condition for a successful test, trace and isolate scheme. I find it hard to believe that it should be beyond the collective capabilities of democracies to devise such a system.
South Korea is a democracy, as are Taiwan, New Zealand and some other countries that have done reasonably well in suppressing the virus. They have done well because they have been transparent with their populations that if you want to live something like a normal life, not be killed and not trash your economy, you have to have some discipline, and that applies to everyone.
Nothing to do with the intrusive levels of surveillance then? New Zealand did well because it shut down immediately helping restrict it to domestic transmission.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
BUT THEY DON'T SOCIALISE IN LOCKDOWN EITHER!
Jeez Louise.
Yes the only way to stop them from socialising is having a lockdown.
If there's no lockdown, they will socialise.
Pay them lots of money not to. It's cheaper than lockdown.
How much? How much will you pay them not to socialise? Remembering that it is 1.5 million people we are talking about, how much do you think it is appropriate to pay someone not to socialise while everyone else can?
And does that extend to their partners and children and family and friends too? How would it work?
I'm not trying to be awkward, if you've got an answer I'd love to hear it. It just seems to me to be implausible.
How does an extra £10k sound, tax free. With the 1.5m number (which is actually closer to 1m) that's £15bn, the cost of lockdown is 20x that figure.
Cool, now we're getting somewhere.
Now does that just apply to those working in the sector? What about their children or husbands etc that they live with? What restrictions will you apply for that £10k, will a carer still be able to go for a coffee and a chat with her sister (who was at the pub last Friday) or complete lockdown?
The bonus is for separation, you get it to not socialise so no coffees, no pub, no restaurants. It isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with assistance for school age children of them or some kind of package for spouses. I mean even another £10k isn't out of the question for couples. We're talking about the difference between life continuing basically as normal for everyone else and a tiny economic hit for the cost of maybe £40-50bn if it's very generous or a repeat of what we already had which will cost £300bn once we're counted everything up.
Isn't it something worth looking at, at least?
It absolutely is worth looking at – as are other imaginative, creative ideas in this field. Sadly much of this debate gets shut down on the principle of "it'll never work".
Well, maybe it won't, but neither do repeated lockdowns.
They destroy the economy and cause non-covid harm and yet we seem to be hooked on them as the one and only thing we can do. Even though they provably are not a solution.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
BUT THEY DON'T SOCIALISE IN LOCKDOWN EITHER!
Jeez Louise.
Yes the only way to stop them from socialising is having a lockdown.
If there's no lockdown, they will socialise.
Pay them lots of money not to. It's cheaper than lockdown.
How much? How much will you pay them not to socialise? Remembering that it is 1.5 million people we are talking about, how much do you think it is appropriate to pay someone not to socialise while everyone else can?
And does that extend to their partners and children and family and friends too? How would it work?
I'm not trying to be awkward, if you've got an answer I'd love to hear it. It just seems to me to be implausible.
How does an extra £10k sound, tax free. With the 1.5m number (which is actually closer to 1m) that's £15bn, the cost of lockdown is 20x that figure.
Cool, now we're getting somewhere.
Now does that just apply to those working in the sector? What about their children or husbands etc that they live with? What restrictions will you apply for that £10k, will a carer still be able to go for a coffee and a chat with her sister (who was at the pub last Friday) or complete lockdown?
The bonus is for separation, you get it to not socialise so no coffees, no pub, no restaurants. It isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with assistance for school age children of them or some kind of package for spouses. I mean even another £10k isn't out of the question for couples. We're talking about the difference between life continuing basically as normal for everyone else and a tiny economic hit for the cost of maybe £40-50bn if it's very generous or a repeat of what we already had which will cost £300bn once we're counted everything up.
Isn't it something worth looking at, at least?
It is worth considering and at that level of cash I think it could be taken up by some. When people imply that something like this is easily done, its not. If you're happy to put £40-50bn behind it (and I don't think it could be done for any cheaper than that) then that's possble.
Though how long does that 10k last for? £10k for months could work, £10k for years and people aren't going to stick to it.
If the government was organised enough it could easily create a socialising bubble for people in this situation via an app to people eligible for the grant. It takes as long as it takes, they could pay it as a monthly bonus (cheaper than furlough) for as many months as it takes to get a vaccine.
My point is that no one has seriously looked at risk segmentation and your original claim that it has been answered isn't correct. It has been rejected out of hand, unnecessarily because politicians are afraid of the headlines.
(1) There is no long-term "let it rip" strategy, because after a few weeks of "let it rip", then population locks themselves down anyway. People (except perhaps the 18 to 24 demographic) don't go out and socialise if they think there's a serious risk of catching CV19.
This is why places like Georgia (in the US) which removed pretty much all restrictions haven't performed appreciably better economically, and have still seen cases - after an initial "let it rip" - come down.
(2) Sweden does not have a "let it rip" strategy. Instead it had a perfectly sensible set of long-term R minimisation strategies (school and university are virtual for 16 and up - yes, even now), encourage working from home, table service only at bars and restaurants, prohibitions on high risk events. Most shops - especially in Stockholm - require mask wearing, and it is common (but far from universal) on public transport. Sweden's strategy has been a largely voluntary lockdown, and one that has avoided big swings in restrictions.
The most sensible way forward - as I've said for, ooohhhh..., about six months now is a consistent set of restrictions on the highest risk activities that people can live with and adjust to.
This, by the way, has also been the strategy in Japan, which - especially given its dense urban population - has probably performed by far the best of any major advanced economy.
Potd - I increasingly cannot be bothered with this site as it has become infested with moaners and whingers who simply cannot accept that this virus has irrevocably changed the way we have to live for at least the next year or so. I agree that high risk non-essential activities must be closed or curbed and the staff / owners compensated as best the country can afford. Universities should probably be c,osed except for on-line teaching and sensible restrictions followed in schhols and workplaces. Mask wearing should be pretty well compulsory in all indoor settings and outdoors too where distancing is impractical. This way infections can be minimised and the vulnerable protected. It really is not the end of the world to do without pubs and cinemas for a while. FFS people get a grip... or the covid grip[e] - your choice.
Yes, I agree with all of that. Whatever happened to our stiff upper lip? We're not being bombed or shot at or invaded. We're not at risk of power cuts or starvation. Who'd have imagined that a little boredom and inconvenience was too much for the nation to tolerate in order to save lives?
(1) There is no long-term "let it rip" strategy, because after a few weeks of "let it rip", then population locks themselves down anyway. People (except perhaps the 18 to 24 demographic) don't go out and socialise if they think there's a serious risk of catching CV19.
This is why places like Georgia (in the US) which removed pretty much all restrictions haven't performed appreciably better economically, and have still seen cases - after an initial "let it rip" - come down.
(2) Sweden does not have a "let it rip" strategy. Instead it had a perfectly sensible set of long-term R minimisation strategies (school and university are virtual for 16 and up - yes, even now), encourage working from home, table service only at bars and restaurants, prohibitions on high risk events. Most shops - especially in Stockholm - require mask wearing, and it is common (but far from universal) on public transport. Sweden's strategy has been a largely voluntary lockdown, and one that has avoided big swings in restrictions.
The most sensible way forward - as I've said for, ooohhhh..., about six months now is a consistent set of restrictions on the highest risk activities that people can live with and adjust to.
This, by the way, has also been the strategy in Japan, which - especially given its dense urban population - has probably performed by far the best of any major advanced economy.
"let it rip" is just a caricature of the opinion of those who think the restrictions are too severe. Like when people say that those who want stricter immigration controls "hate foreigners"
Yes. It's an absolutely infantile way to frame the debate – I'm not aware of any PBer (for example) who advocates a free-for-all. Even @LadyG accepts some restrictions. Casting more liberal voices as 'let it rip' actually makes debating this boring and pointless because it makes it utterly impossible to find common ground and nuanced solutions.
You're entirely welcome to come up with a better term for it if it offends you. However, the bald facts are. Cases are rising. You, and many others, want restrictions loosened. How would you better describe what then would happen, given all the available evidence, in very simple terms?
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I've backed Trump 270-289 as discussed this morning yet have no bets on Big Joe.
That all said, I intend to do so at some point, just trying to work out the sweet spot for value and that's not now I don't think.
He got 304 last time, what state(s) will he lose this time?
Yes my theory was 2016 less one of the midwestern states.
That's not a prediction by the way – just a rationale for my covering bet.
Scotland - LOL pubs open 6am to 6pm only! Let's all get pissed in the daytime instead!
No, they won't be serving alcohol at all.
Let's see how 'temporary' the 16 day closure is!
Yes. Experience shows that these lockdowns get extended, and extended. The Scottish govt probably knows that they may need these rules in place for many weeks, but can't admit it as too many Glaswegians will hang themselves.
Imagine a Glasgow winter with no pubs. Cold darkness of December, freezing empty streets, everyone hiding at home. My God.
No old firm games!
All the pubs will shut as there will not be enough business between 6-6 but by doing this the Scottish Government will not have to put a financial package in place to help the staff as they can open.
Indeed. It will be too depressing to go to a pub "for coffee" and too cold to sit outside so the pubs will close, as no one will turn up.
Yep, I think the sitting outside to 10pm in Scotland in October is...ahem 'optimistic'.
I rather like drinking outside in the freezing cold. Get your newly waxed Barbour on, plus old man cap and a scarf, down in one with a whisky followed by a 10 minute pint of foaming bitter just this side of room temperature. It's part and parcel of being an Englishman. Key is correct dress (as described) and discipline. No lingering or deciding you fancy a second. That doesn't work.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
BUT THEY DON'T SOCIALISE IN LOCKDOWN EITHER!
Jeez Louise.
Yes the only way to stop them from socialising is having a lockdown.
If there's no lockdown, they will socialise.
Pay them lots of money not to. It's cheaper than lockdown.
How much? How much will you pay them not to socialise? Remembering that it is 1.5 million people we are talking about, how much do you think it is appropriate to pay someone not to socialise while everyone else can?
And does that extend to their partners and children and family and friends too? How would it work?
I'm not trying to be awkward, if you've got an answer I'd love to hear it. It just seems to me to be implausible.
How does an extra £10k sound, tax free. With the 1.5m number (which is actually closer to 1m) that's £15bn, the cost of lockdown is 20x that figure.
Cool, now we're getting somewhere.
Now does that just apply to those working in the sector? What about their children or husbands etc that they live with? What restrictions will you apply for that £10k, will a carer still be able to go for a coffee and a chat with her sister (who was at the pub last Friday) or complete lockdown?
The bonus is for separation, you get it to not socialise so no coffees, no pub, no restaurants. It isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with assistance for school age children of them or some kind of package for spouses. I mean even another £10k isn't out of the question for couples. We're talking about the difference between life continuing basically as normal for everyone else and a tiny economic hit for the cost of maybe £40-50bn if it's very generous or a repeat of what we already had which will cost £300bn once we're counted everything up.
Isn't it something worth looking at, at least?
It absolutely is worth looking at – as are other imaginative, creative ideas in this field. Sadly much of this debate gets shut down on the principle of "it'll never work".
Well, maybe it won't, but neither do repeated lockdowns.
They destroy the economy and cause non-covid harm and yet we seem to be hooked on them as the one and only thing we can do. Even though they provably are not a solution.
So yes, we need to start looking at alternatives.
Repeated lockdowns are just useless, it would have been better to go down a 50% of normal life road rather than 20% then 80% then 40% like we have now. At least people would have understood the rules easily and been able to stick to them.
Scottish exams cancelled in 2021? One year as an emergency measure was a thing - but do it again and they’re really going to have to plan it properly. And if they do could be the end of the exam system in this country? Bad news for the crammed...
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I'm backing him to win. Because I think people let their dislike of him interfere with their analysis of election factors.
Are you expecting him and you to win? Or do you simply think he represents value?
I don't think he'll win, but I think the possibility of him scraping home in the electoral college is more likely than the current odds of 6/1 for the 270-299 range.
Those odds are consistent with Nate Silver's model. The Economist's would suggest a bigger price.
I am sure you are better at judging the odds than me, I just think that Trump has a better than 6/1 shot of winning a two horse race and I seriously doubt he's going to get more than 300 electoral college seats.
Nate's suggestion, not mine. I keep an open mind and trade in and out as the prices fluctuate. I'm about £600 'in the money' as things stand but am not yet inclined to trade out.
I don't bet as heavily as I once did but am being increasingly drawn by what I regard as a pretty decent investment opportunity for those that can read it right. My regular readers (both of them) will already know how I am reading it at the moment.
I was having a look at the democrat primary betting graphs again earlier, on Feb 24th Warren was a 57% chance and Biden was 4th in the betting at under 10% chance.
Just over a week later Biden had pretty much wrapped up the nomination, it shows how quickly things can change.
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I'm backing him to win. Because I think people let their dislike of him interfere with their analysis of election factors.
What percentage chance would you put for a Trump winI thin at this point in time?
First off I have really not taken a keen interest or paid much attention to the minutiae of the US election. It is a land far away and I couldn't give a rat's arse who might do well in Ohio.
However, Trump is an incumbent who, wall aside, has delivered a lot of what he promised to the American electorate (I understand).
He is also an odious arse but if peoples' stomachs are full, and they know that the person in the White House is going to fight for them, then that is a pretty compelling reason to keep him there.
Just like the 2019 GE where I backed Cons OM for 60-90 seats because just about everything that contributed to Corbyn's performance in 2017 was in the price and I couldn't see an incremental increase from there, so I think Trump is a known quantity and everything negative is pretty much out there so there is no reason for him to take a tremendous dip.
But as I said, I know nothing about US politics analytically, that's just my gut feel.
America is difficult to poll. Republican America, especially, given its demographics and the stigma of being a trump supporter in some quarters.
Add to that the visceral, extreme and total hatred of the media for Trump. I mean they have disliked republican presidents in the past. But Trump is at a complete other level. Even Fox have only one or two pro-Trump presenters.
As a polling company in the pay of the media, its just too easy to serve up good polls for Biden. If he loses, so what.
Imagine serving up a bad poll for the man three weeks out and Biden wins anyway. A whole day of awkward coverage for a man the presenters simply cannot, cannot even abide. Even bear thinking about.
That's a contract losing move, right there.
I think that aspect of it gets missed.
A lot of polling companies are not healthy organisations these days, and certainly less so than four years ago. Margins have collapsed, staff have been juniorised and there is a shift in emphasis to the mining of data than anything else (ps yes, YouGov actually are doing very well).
Political polling doesn't make that much in the way of margins and, as Contrarian said, I can't imagine the NYT readership is going to be too chuffed if all they see are polls showing Trump holding his own vs Biden. There is an incentive there to downplay any positive results. And, if he wins, well you blame it on "shy Trumpsters" and come up with an excuse why your model was somehow right.
Which is not to say that the polls are deliberately skewed. However, I would take exception with the belief that polling companies should be treated as necessarily reliable.
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I've backed Trump 270-289 as discussed this morning yet have no bets on Big Joe.
That all said, I intend to do so at some point, just trying to work out the sweet spot for value and that's not now I don't think.
The time to back the Dems was back when they were @2.5 earlier this year.
Some of my bets on Biden were at 23/1, admittedly some time ago.
My average is at 5.2
Good work. I managed a Biden bet at 28/1 for a fiver way back in August 2017, and then a few more dippings in at around 7 and 6 and 4.
Unless you let rip, more stringent restrictions are the only alternative. The ones we have aren't working. There is no other way to square the circle.
Sure there is. You isolate the people who are infectious, or that you reasonably suspect might be infectious.
This involves rigorous, detailed work. It has to be done quickly. It involves lots of people in local areas who have the trust of the people in those areas, so that the public will cooperate.
Cannot see we have the manpower for any of that at short notice. Neither for the tracing nor enforcement. Nor do we have the sick pay to incentivise those isolating. The summer was the time for putting such systems in place, but we chose a confected row with Brussels instead.
Certainly it would have been better to do that in the summer (or earlier), but if the best time to do something was yesterday, the second best time is today.
We could have another grim, fractious six months and wish that we'd done better work on a test, trace and isolate system in the autumn.
We can agree there. But, in the meantime we are facing either an increase in cases or more stringent restrictions. There is no immediate third option.
Are we really about to see Scotland ban the sale of booze in pubs? Wtf is even going on now.
Curious what form of compensation Saint Nicola will give to those businesses for that - and what opporbium goes her way for that.
Not as much if she were otherwise unpopular. In fairness, if ever there was a time to cash in, politically, on personal popularity to do unpopular things, it is now. Most politicians don't get the chance as they are never popular.
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I'm backing him to win. Because I think people let their dislike of him interfere with their analysis of election factors.
Are you expecting him and you to win? Or do you simply think he represents value?
I don't think he'll win, but I think the possibility of him scraping home in the electoral college is more likely than the current odds of 6/1 for the 270-299 range.
Those odds are consistent with Nate Silver's model. The Economist's would suggest a bigger price.
I am sure you are better at judging the odds than me, I just think that Trump has a better than 6/1 shot of winning a two horse race and I seriously doubt he's going to get more than 300 electoral college seats.
Nate's suggestion, not mine. I keep an open mind and trade in and out as the prices fluctuate. I'm about £600 'in the money' as things stand but am not yet inclined to trade out.
I don't bet as heavily as I once did but am being increasingly drawn by what I regard as a pretty decent investment opportunity for those that can read it right. My regular readers (both of them) will already know how I am reading it at the moment.
I was having a look at the democrat primary betting graphs again earlier, on Feb 24th Warren was a 57% chance and Biden was 4th in the betting at under 10% chance.
Just over a week later Biden had pretty much wrapped up the nomination, it shows how quickly things can change.
Well if they didn't us impecunious punters would never be able to make a dishonest living!
(1) There is no long-term "let it rip" strategy, because after a few weeks of "let it rip", then population locks themselves down anyway. People (except perhaps the 18 to 24 demographic) don't go out and socialise if they think there's a serious risk of catching CV19.
This is why places like Georgia (in the US) which removed pretty much all restrictions haven't performed appreciably better economically, and have still seen cases - after an initial "let it rip" - come down.
(2) Sweden does not have a "let it rip" strategy. Instead it had a perfectly sensible set of long-term R minimisation strategies (school and university are virtual for 16 and up - yes, even now), encourage working from home, table service only at bars and restaurants, prohibitions on high risk events. Most shops - especially in Stockholm - require mask wearing, and it is common (but far from universal) on public transport. Sweden's strategy has been a largely voluntary lockdown, and one that has avoided big swings in restrictions.
The most sensible way forward - as I've said for, ooohhhh..., about six months now is a consistent set of restrictions on the highest risk activities that people can live with and adjust to.
This, by the way, has also been the strategy in Japan, which - especially given its dense urban population - has probably performed by far the best of any major advanced economy.
"let it rip" is just a caricature of the opinion of those who think the restrictions are too severe. Like when people say that those who want stricter immigration controls "hate foreigners"
Yes. It's an absolutely infantile way to frame the debate – I'm not aware of any PBer (for example) who advocates a free-for-all. Even @LadyG accepts some restrictions. Casting more liberal voices as 'let it rip' actually makes debating this boring and pointless because it makes it utterly impossible to find common ground and nuanced solutions.
You're entirely welcome to come up with a better term for it if it offends you. However, the bald facts are. Cases are rising. You, and many others, want restrictions loosened. How would you better describe what then would happen, given all the available evidence, in very simple terms?
Not so. I think the current restrictions in England are about right for now. I think pubs should be compensated for having to close early, if we really think that 10pm closure is effective against rampant spread.
As I have said endlessly, I would explore risk segmentation as a strategy, rather than use lockdowns as the only lever in the machine.
My son in law's mother who has dementia and is in care was taken into hospital on Sunday and has lost the use of her right leg. The ambulance took 6 hours to come and she was then in A & E for 24 hours waiting for a ward.
When she went on the ward my son in law was told neither his sister or he could see her whilst she is in hospital. Yesterday the hospital said she had stopped eating and drinking and they could not get a line in and that she is failing. They said her daughter could come in after school today, (she is a teacher), just to see if she could provide some help in the situation
It is clear she will not be able to stay a long time at the hospital and my son in law knows it is very unlikely he will see his mother again
And his father is in care also and neither my son in law or his daughter have seen him in the last 14 days and they have not yet told him of the situation with their mother
The anguish in the family is very real and the feeling of being helpless all consuming
Very sorry to read this news @Big_G_NorthWales. These are grim times. Can't imagine what it is like not being able to see someone that close to you in hospital. Hope things improve for your family soon.
Very optimistic Mike, love to see it happen but it suspect it won't, then there is the Supreme Court, likely to find some reason to declare the result invalid! Get ready for four years of very autocratic rule. with the Senate and Congress being suspended.
Yet another journo carelessly using the term 'herd immunity'. It is not a strategy it is a fact of viral infections. At some point it is reached one way or another.
My son in law's mother who has dementia and is in care was taken into hospital on Sunday and has lost the use of her right leg. The ambulance took 6 hours to come and she was then in A & E for 24 hours waiting for a ward.
When she went on the ward my son in law was told neither his sister or he could see her whilst she is in hospital. Yesterday the hospital said she had stopped eating and drinking and they could not get a line in and that she is failing. They said her daughter could come in after school today, (she is a teacher), just to see if she could provide some help in the situation
It is clear she will not be able to stay a long time at the hospital and my son in law knows it is very unlikely he will see his mother again
And his father is in care also and neither my son in law or his daughter have seen him in the last 14 days and they have not yet told him of the situation with their mother
The anguish in the family is very real and the feeling of being helpless all consuming
Very sorry to read this news @Big_G_NorthWales. These are grim times. Can't imagine what it is like not being able to see someone that close to you in hospital. Hope things improve for your family soon.
Sympathies also to Big G.
I have friends and acquaintances in arguably even worse circumstances, as they are much younger but face equally terrible trauma. Tough times indeed.
So with a harsher lockdown, say pubs closing, no household mixing, granny doesn't get a hug.
What is the difference between this, for granny, if a bunch of 20-30yr olds minus those who must associate with vulnerable people are down the pub?
The difference for granny is that she is far, far less likely under the harsher lockdown to get the virus than if there is no lockdown. Especially if she needs any form of care which probably comes from 20-30 year olds.
If the virus is rife in the community then the people who care for the elderly will be infected and even with PPE will pass it on to the elderly.
You can argue its a price worth paying, but don't pretend please there's no difference. There absolutely is.
How so? Her carers aren't forced to go down the pub. They will take more care. But they might get the virus on the bus. Yes indeed they might and that is a difference. So work to make public transport safer by mask compliance and sanitation measures.
The question then becomes - is the chance of a carer getting the virus on public transport large enough to lock down a whole city.
If you think her carers, often working on minimum wage, will not be living their own lives when off the clock then that is entirely naive.
Do you honestly think that a young 20-something care worker on minimum wage never goes to the pub or does anything else same as everyone else their age?
So pay them not to, it's cheaper to do this than destroy a whole industry.
That is 1.5 million people. Approximately 1,500,000 work in adult social care. How much are you going to pay that 1.5 million people not to socialise at all?
And how are you going to enforce that? Are we going to tag them all? Put ankle bracelets on them?
Furthermore what about their boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/children etc? Their friends? Their relatives they mingle with? When they go to the shops?
PS how much would you need to be paid to agree not to socialise at all with friends and family?
BUT THEY DON'T SOCIALISE IN LOCKDOWN EITHER!
Jeez Louise.
Yes the only way to stop them from socialising is having a lockdown.
If there's no lockdown, they will socialise.
Pay them lots of money not to. It's cheaper than lockdown.
How much? How much will you pay them not to socialise? Remembering that it is 1.5 million people we are talking about, how much do you think it is appropriate to pay someone not to socialise while everyone else can?
And does that extend to their partners and children and family and friends too? How would it work?
I'm not trying to be awkward, if you've got an answer I'd love to hear it. It just seems to me to be implausible.
How does an extra £10k sound, tax free. With the 1.5m number (which is actually closer to 1m) that's £15bn, the cost of lockdown is 20x that figure.
Cool, now we're getting somewhere.
Now does that just apply to those working in the sector? What about their children or husbands etc that they live with? What restrictions will you apply for that £10k, will a carer still be able to go for a coffee and a chat with her sister (who was at the pub last Friday) or complete lockdown?
The bonus is for separation, you get it to not socialise so no coffees, no pub, no restaurants. It isn't beyond the wit of man to come up with assistance for school age children of them or some kind of package for spouses. I mean even another £10k isn't out of the question for couples. We're talking about the difference between life continuing basically as normal for everyone else and a tiny economic hit for the cost of maybe £40-50bn if it's very generous or a repeat of what we already had which will cost £300bn once we're counted everything up.
Isn't it something worth looking at, at least?
It absolutely is worth looking at – as are other imaginative, creative ideas in this field. Sadly much of this debate gets shut down on the principle of "it'll never work".
Well, maybe it won't, but neither do repeated lockdowns.
They destroy the economy and cause non-covid harm and yet we seem to be hooked on them as the one and only thing we can do. Even though they provably are not a solution.
So yes, we need to start looking at alternatives.
Power is addictive. We are the naughty schoolboys now, and Boris/the SNP can put us in detention for cheek or because a prefect reported us. Is Sir Keir riding to the rescue?
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I'm backing him to win. Because I think people let their dislike of him interfere with their analysis of election factors.
What percentage chance would you put for a Trump winI thin at this point in time?
First off I have really not taken a keen interest or paid much attention to the minutiae of the US election. It is a land far away and I couldn't give a rat's arse who might do well in Ohio.
However, Trump is an incumbent who, wall aside, has delivered a lot of what he promised to the American electorate (I understand).
He is also an odious arse but if peoples' stomachs are full, and they know that the person in the White House is going to fight for them, then that is a pretty compelling reason to keep him there.
Just like the 2019 GE where I backed Cons OM for 60-90 seats because just about everything that contributed to Corbyn's performance in 2017 was in the price and I couldn't see an incremental increase from there, so I think Trump is a known quantity and everything negative is pretty much out there so there is no reason for him to take a tremendous dip.
But as I said, I know nothing about US politics analytically, that's just my gut feel.
America is difficult to poll. Republican America, especially, given its demographics and the stigma of being a trump supporter in some quarters.
Add to that the visceral, extreme and total hatred of the media for Trump. I mean they have disliked republican presidents in the past. But Trump is at a complete other level. Even Fox have only one or two pro-Trump presenters.
As a polling company in the pay of the media, its just too easy to serve up good polls for Biden. If he loses, so what.
Imagine serving up a bad poll for the man three weeks out and Biden wins anyway. A whole day of awkward coverage for a man the presenters simply cannot, cannot even abide. Even bear thinking about.
That's a contract losing move, right there.
I think that aspect of it gets missed.
A lot of polling companies are not healthy organisations these days, and certainly less so than four years ago. Margins have collapsed, staff have been juniorised and there is a shift in emphasis to the mining of data than anything else (ps yes, YouGov actually are doing very well).
Political polling doesn't make that much in the way of margins and, as Contrarian said, I can't imagine the NYT readership is going to be too chuffed if all they see are polls showing Trump holding his own vs Biden. There is an incentive there to downplay any positive results. And, if he wins, well you blame it on "shy Trumpsters" and come up with an excuse why your model was somehow right.
Which is not to say that the polls are deliberately skewed. However, I would take exception with the belief that polling companies should be treated as necessarily reliable.
I think there are always lots of people who like it when their side is behind in the polls, because it gives them an excuse to say that the leadership of their side should change policy in the way that those people always wanted.
So, for example, if Biden were behind then you would see arguments that it proved he should be more radical to excite young voters, or he should focus his agenda on Union workers, or he needs to pledge to bring American soldiers home, or Warren should have been the nominee, etc.
I think there would be a market for that at CNN, or the NYT, the whole lot of them.
My son in law's mother who has dementia and is in care was taken into hospital on Sunday and has lost the use of her right leg. The ambulance took 6 hours to come and she was then in A & E for 24 hours waiting for a ward.
When she went on the ward my son in law was told neither his sister or he could see her whilst she is in hospital. Yesterday the hospital said she had stopped eating and drinking and they could not get a line in and that she is failing. They said her daughter could come in after school today, (she is a teacher), just to see if she could provide some help in the situation
It is clear she will not be able to stay a long time at the hospital and my son in law knows it is very unlikely he will see his mother again
And his father is in care also and neither my son in law or his daughter have seen him in the last 14 days and they have not yet told him of the situation with their mother
The anguish in the family is very real and the feeling of being helpless all consuming
Very sorry to read this news @Big_G_NorthWales. These are grim times. Can't imagine what it is like not being able to see someone that close to you in hospital. Hope things improve for your family soon.
I am so sorry to hear that @Big_G_NorthWales, it is little consolation but prayers and thoughts with you.
My son in law's mother who has dementia and is in care was taken into hospital on Sunday and has lost the use of her right leg. The ambulance took 6 hours to come and she was then in A & E for 24 hours waiting for a ward.
When she went on the ward my son in law was told neither his sister or he could see her whilst she is in hospital. Yesterday the hospital said she had stopped eating and drinking and they could not get a line in and that she is failing. They said her daughter could come in after school today, (she is a teacher), just to see if she could provide some help in the situation
It is clear she will not be able to stay a long time at the hospital and my son in law knows it is very unlikely he will see his mother again
And his father is in care also and neither my son in law or his daughter have seen him in the last 14 days and they have not yet told him of the situation with their mother
The anguish in the family is very real and the feeling of being helpless all consuming
Very sorry to read this news @Big_G_NorthWales. These are grim times. Can't imagine what it is like not being able to see someone that close to you in hospital. Hope things improve for your family soon.
Thank you so much.
Many tears shed in the last day or two at the hopelessness of the situation.
Nobody should be prevented to be at the bedside of their mother's final days
“I don’t accept the premise of the question. I don’t think we have to rejoin the single market and customs union,” she said. “In four years time when the next election will be, businesses would have started doing things differently…
In comparisons between the 2018 midterms turnout and the 2020 presidential election be wary though.
In 2018 the Democrats got 60,572,245 votes, that was only 5 million less than the 65,853,514 votes Hillary got in the 2016 presidential election so there was huge Democrat turnout in 2018 to protest against Trump.
The Republicans however had much bigger problems getting their voters out in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot. Only 50,861,970 voted Republican in 2018, a huge 12 million less than the 62,984,828 votes Trump got in 2016.
So in short expect Trump's vote in November to be significantly higher than the Republicans got in 2018 but the Biden vote to be much closer to the Democratic vote in 2018.
Aren't you assuming that everyone who voted in 2018 voted for the same party in 2016?
If that 60m Democrat total in 2018 includes, say, 5m people who voted for Trump/ didn't vote in 2016 then it makes a nonsense of your conclusion
According to the 2018 exit polls 5% of Hillary 2016 voters voted Republican and 8% of Trump 2016 voters voted Democrat in the midterms, so not a great difference.
The main difference was higher turnout amongst Democrats in 2016 than 2016 Trump voters and a few 2016 did not votes or third party voters voting Democrat
My son in law's mother who has dementia and is in care was taken into hospital on Sunday and has lost the use of her right leg. The ambulance took 6 hours to come and she was then in A & E for 24 hours waiting for a ward.
When she went on the ward my son in law was told neither his sister or he could see her whilst she is in hospital. Yesterday the hospital said she had stopped eating and drinking and they could not get a line in and that she is failing. They said her daughter could come in after school today, (she is a teacher), just to see if she could provide some help in the situation
It is clear she will not be able to stay a long time at the hospital and my son in law knows it is very unlikely he will see his mother again
And his father is in care also and neither my son in law or his daughter have seen him in the last 14 days and they have not yet told him of the situation with their mother
The anguish in the family is very real and the feeling of being helpless all consuming
Very sorry to read this news @Big_G_NorthWales. These are grim times. Can't imagine what it is like not being able to see someone that close to you in hospital. Hope things improve for your family soon.
I am so sorry to hear that @Big_G_NorthWales, it is little consolation but prayers and thoughts with you.
Another example of unthinking application of rules (however valid), mindlessly. We know enough now to let in family members in a way which will not imperil other patients or staff. Who on earth is being protected by this rule?
This sort of situation makes my very angry. My thoughts to you and yours, BGN
It's remarkable how Trump has taken on the mantle of Hillary Clinton, appearing elite and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The very thing which led him to win has gone.
My general view has always been that it's quite difficult to find anyone (outside deranged Trumpers, QAnon-ers and the odd Bernie Bro) who hates Biden. Hate seems to be a big factor in US politics nowadays
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about it and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
My son in law's mother who has dementia and is in care was taken into hospital on Sunday and has lost the use of her right leg. The ambulance took 6 hours to come and she was then in A & E for 24 hours waiting for a ward.
When she went on the ward my son in law was told neither his sister or he could see her whilst she is in hospital. Yesterday the hospital said she had stopped eating and drinking and they could not get a line in and that she is failing. They said her daughter could come in after school today, (she is a teacher), just to see if she could provide some help in the situation
It is clear she will not be able to stay a long time at the hospital and my son in law knows it is very unlikely he will see his mother again
And his father is in care also and neither my son in law or his daughter have seen him in the last 14 days and they have not yet told him of the situation with their mother
The anguish in the family is very real and the feeling of being helpless all consuming
Very sorry to read this news @Big_G_NorthWales. These are grim times. Can't imagine what it is like not being able to see someone that close to you in hospital. Hope things improve for your family soon.
I am so sorry to hear that @Big_G_NorthWales, it is little consolation but prayers and thoughts with you.
Another example of unthinking application of rules (however valid), mindlessly. We know enough now to let in family members in a way which will not imperil other patients or staff. Who on earth is being protected by this rule?
This sort of situation makes my very angry. My thoughts to you and yours, BGN
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about the virus and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
That came a lot later, he wasn't even seen in public for a couple of months.
Re the vaccine I had a chat to someone close to the Oxford project. They expect to know if it works around the end of this month. They are all very confident but do not have any inside info as the trials are double blind with just one data guy in the know. Timing wise a bit of a black swan in the presidential thing I guess.
They did say if it does not work none of the others around the world will either as they are all basically using the same science (apart from the Imperial one which is a very long shot).
This person thinks if that happens we are back to herd immunity and a lot of deaths as pretty much all western countries have basically had a policy of supress and wait for the vaccine.
Very optimistic Mike, love to see it happen but it suspect it won't, then there is the Supreme Court, likely to find some reason to declare the result invalid! Get ready for four years of very autocratic rule. with the Senate and Congress being suspended.
Firstly, the Senate is part of Congress. Secondly, Congress can no more be suspended in the US than Parliament can be suspended in the UK. Just like with Parliament in the UK, the legal authority to raise and spend money by the government rests with Congress. Suspend Congress and you suspend the government.
Of course, yes the administration could try to act extra-legally and announce it's suspending Congress and taking the legal authority to tax and spend upon itself. Maybe even SCOTUS would sign off on that, although even a court composed entirely of clones of the late Antonin Scalia would probably baulk at that.
But at that point the whole US Constitution would be de facto suspended. And that is the point where the entire US armed forces would intervene, as they have all sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". And that part occurs before the part about obeying the President's orders.
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about the virus and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
Yes. About the only good moment, for Boris, during this pandemic, was his personal response to catching it. He made a couple of good speeches, he looked statesmanlike and gracious.
Trump has acted like a selfish lunatic, wilfully exposing his poor minions to a deadly disease, and practically boasting about it.
He's a fucking madman. I sometimes wonder if it would actually be Constitutional for the CIA to remove him by force, for the sake of the world.
"The day after the presidential debate, the phones began to ring at the clerk’s office in Ada County, Idaho, with a handful of residents worried about their safety at the polls. Election officials hastily added training for poll workers on what to do if someone shows up armed."
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about the virus and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
That came a lot later, he wasn't even seen in public for a couple of months.
That's not true. Boris made a rather moving, and much praised speech, about a week after he got out of the hossie.
He's handled this virus badly, but he was good at at that one thing.
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about the virus and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
That came a lot later, he wasn't even seen in public for a couple of months.
I think he displayed contrition very early. He also stayed in hospital and hunkered down, sending out messages. Do you remember when he came to the steps of No. 10 when he was clearly ill with the virus (before he was diagnosed) to clap like the rest of us?
Just a zillion zillion miles from this utter moron in the White House.
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
I think the fundamental difference between Johnson and Trump is likeability. I am probably the biggest critic possible of Johnson, but I can see why he has a school boyish appeal to some. He was easy to feel sorry for when he had Covid, even though he had behaved like a complete cretin in shaking hands with dozens of people. Feeling sorry for Trump, on the other hand, is like feeling sorry for a cockroach.
The point about the media is important. All of them bar Fox News are really laying into Trump.
The other thing about his lunacy is the super spread in the White House. So the story isn't just about this moron but his, sometimes unfortunate, staffers who were coerced into not being protective. Masks were seen as disloyalty and weakness.
The man's beyond a disgrace and I think Americans have seen right through it finally.
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I'm backing him to win. Because I think people let their dislike of him interfere with their analysis of election factors.
What percentage chance would you put for a Trump winI thin at this point in time?
First off I have really not taken a keen interest or paid much attention to the minutiae of the US election. It is a land far away and I couldn't give a rat's arse who might do well in Ohio.
However, Trump is an incumbent who, wall aside, has delivered a lot of what he promised to the American electorate (I understand).
He is also an odious arse but if peoples' stomachs are full, and they know that the person in the White House is going to fight for them, then that is a pretty compelling reason to keep him there.
Just like the 2019 GE where I backed Cons OM for 60-90 seats because just about everything that contributed to Corbyn's performance in 2017 was in the price and I couldn't see an incremental increase from there, so I think Trump is a known quantity and everything negative is pretty much out there so there is no reason for him to take a tremendous dip.
But as I said, I know nothing about US politics analytically, that's just my gut feel.
America is difficult to poll. Republican America, especially, given its demographics and the stigma of being a trump supporter in some quarters.
Add to that the visceral, extreme and total hatred of the media for Trump. I mean they have disliked republican presidents in the past. But Trump is at a complete other level. Even Fox have only one or two pro-Trump presenters.
As a polling company in the pay of the media, its just too easy to serve up good polls for Biden. If he loses, so what.
Imagine serving up a bad poll for the man three weeks out and Biden wins anyway. A whole day of awkward coverage for a man the presenters simply cannot, cannot even abide. Even bear thinking about.
That's a contract losing move, right there.
I think that aspect of it gets missed.
A lot of polling companies are not healthy organisations these days, and certainly less so than four years ago. Margins have collapsed, staff have been juniorised and there is a shift in emphasis to the mining of data than anything else (ps yes, YouGov actually are doing very well).
Political polling doesn't make that much in the way of margins and, as Contrarian said, I can't imagine the NYT readership is going to be too chuffed if all they see are polls showing Trump holding his own vs Biden. There is an incentive there to downplay any positive results. And, if he wins, well you blame it on "shy Trumpsters" and come up with an excuse why your model was somehow right.
Which is not to say that the polls are deliberately skewed. However, I would take exception with the belief that polling companies should be treated as necessarily reliable.
Its easy, really, to come up with a Biden- favourable poll for any swing state, or any other state.
Just go heavy on the cities and light on the 'burbs and the countryside.
Some of the Biden friendly polls also have massive turnout increase assumptions. For BIDEN? well maybe....
It's remarkable how Trump has taken on the mantle of Hillary Clinton, appearing elite and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The very thing which led him to win has gone.
It will be a landslide.
Of course. But will it be vanilla landslide or the BIG one? I still think vanilla but the BIG one is imo becoming increasingly possible.
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about the virus and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
That came a lot later, he wasn't even seen in public for a couple of months.
That's not true. Boris made a rather moving, and much praised speech, about a week after he got out of the hossie.
He's handled this virus badly, but he was good at at that one thing.
Agreed. I pretty much loathe Johnson but that was his finest hour.
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
While plenty of people really dislike Boris, fewer loathe him quite as much as those that loathe Trump. And while Boris purportedly was a bit casual regarding personal virus safety, this was early days in the pandemic and amounted to shaking hands too much, whereas Trump has been holding regular mass events and ignoring social distancing, apparently, for over 6 months.
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I'm backing him to win. Because I think people let their dislike of him interfere with their analysis of election factors.
What percentage chance would you put for a Trump winI thin at this point in time?
First off I have really not taken a keen interest or paid much attention to the minutiae of the US election. It is a land far away and I couldn't give a rat's arse who might do well in Ohio.
However, Trump is an incumbent who, wall aside, has delivered a lot of what he promised to the American electorate (I understand).
He is also an odious arse but if peoples' stomachs are full, and they know that the person in the White House is going to fight for them, then that is a pretty compelling reason to keep him there.
Just like the 2019 GE where I backed Cons OM for 60-90 seats because just about everything that contributed to Corbyn's performance in 2017 was in the price and I couldn't see an incremental increase from there, so I think Trump is a known quantity and everything negative is pretty much out there so there is no reason for him to take a tremendous dip.
But as I said, I know nothing about US politics analytically, that's just my gut feel.
America is difficult to poll. Republican America, especially, given its demographics and the stigma of being a trump supporter in some quarters.
Add to that the visceral, extreme and total hatred of the media for Trump. I mean they have disliked republican presidents in the past. But Trump is at a complete other level. Even Fox have only one or two pro-Trump presenters.
As a polling company in the pay of the media, its just too easy to serve up good polls for Biden. If he loses, so what.
Imagine serving up a bad poll for the man three weeks out and Biden wins anyway. A whole day of awkward coverage for a man the presenters simply cannot, cannot even abide. Even bear thinking about.
That's a contract losing move, right there.
I think that aspect of it gets missed.
A lot of polling companies are not healthy organisations these days, and certainly less so than four years ago. Margins have collapsed, staff have been juniorised and there is a shift in emphasis to the mining of data than anything else (ps yes, YouGov actually are doing very well).
Political polling doesn't make that much in the way of margins and, as Contrarian said, I can't imagine the NYT readership is going to be too chuffed if all they see are polls showing Trump holding his own vs Biden. There is an incentive there to downplay any positive results. And, if he wins, well you blame it on "shy Trumpsters" and come up with an excuse why your model was somehow right.
Which is not to say that the polls are deliberately skewed. However, I would take exception with the belief that polling companies should be treated as necessarily reliable.
Its easy, really, to come up with a Biden- favourable poll for any swing state, or any other state.
Just go heavy on the cities and light on the 'burbs and the countryside.
Some of the Biden friendly polls also have massive turnout increase assumptions. For BIDEN? well maybe....
You may be right that not so many people would make a special effort to turn out for Biden, but I think many, many people will make an effort to turn out against Trump. He really is the marmite of Presidents. You either love him or you hate him. Virtually no-one is indifferent.
“I don’t accept the premise of the question. I don’t think we have to rejoin the single market and customs union,” she said. “In four years time when the next election will be, businesses would have started doing things differently…
I know we have just one or two Trump supporters on here - but I don`t recall any poster, Trump supporter or not, who is actually backing Trump to win with real money (except through an insurance bet due to being so heavily into Biden) which is surprising, esp as it`s a two horse race. They`ll be a lot of red faces if we`ve got this wrong.
I've backed Trump 270-289 as discussed this morning yet have no bets on Big Joe.
That all said, I intend to do so at some point, just trying to work out the sweet spot for value and that's not now I don't think.
He got 304 last time, what state(s) will he lose this time?
Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Arizona for starters ...
‘It’s been so, so surreal.’ Critics of Sweden’s lax pandemic policies face fierce backlash https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash ...The frontal attack violated one of Sweden’s strongest cultural norms, the taboo on open disagreement, says Andrew Ewing, an analytical chemist at the University of Gothenburg who moved to Sweden from the United States 13 years ago. If a disagreement does arise, “you can never make it personal,” says Ewing, who was not part of the original 22 but has since joined the Vetenskapsforum.
“When the debate started, harsh words were exchanged,” says Göran Hansson, a cardiac specialist at KI and secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. But the debate is important, he adds. “Maybe Sweden has too much of a consensus culture. … It’s healthy for science to have discussions. One thing we don’t need in this situation is silencing of views, especially from those with expertise.”
Healthy or not, Brusselaers says she also faced backlash from colleagues and was publicly reprimanded by her department chair for being a “troublemaker” and “a danger to society.” “A colleague told me, ‘We have to stick with [FoHM] and defend it,’” she says. The situation prompted her to return to her native Belgium, where she now has a position at the University of Antwerp, although she is also keeping her group at KI. “I just didn’t expect this reaction in Sweden,” she says. “I never felt like such a foreigner as I did over the past few months.”
Those who challenged the recommendations against face masks faced a similar backlash. Agnieszka Howoruszko, an ophthalmologist at a regional hospital in Landskrona, began to wear a mask in March when she examined patients. “My manager reprimanded me twice,” she says. Howoruszko held her ground. “I said, ‘I’m sorry, if I can’t wear it, I cannot work. Many of my patients are elderly and in high-risk groups.” The manager relented and allowed the clinic’s doctors (but not other staff) to wear masks. “We are the only eye clinic in our province” to take that step, she says...
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about the virus and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
Yes. About the only good moment, for Boris, during this pandemic, was his personal response to catching it. He made a couple of good speeches, he looked statesmanlike and gracious.
Trump has acted like a selfish lunatic, wilfully exposing his poor minions to a deadly disease, and practically boasting about it.
He's a fucking madman. I sometimes wonder if it would actually be Constitutional for the CIA to remove him by force, for the sake of the world.
25th Amendment?
Btw, we both underestimated the likely total number of US Covid deaths. (You said 175k, I went for 200k). What do we think now? I guess it depends on whether the lunatic stays in the asylum or sleepy Joe gets his turn. I'll go for 400,000 if it's Trump, bit less for Biden, say 375,000.
That sounds appalling and (imo) unacceptable. You have to be able to see people who are dying. It should be an exception to any virus regime that you can do this.
The national polls are looking horrific for Trump with several double digits leads for Biden recently, but state polls in the battleground states are not too bad for him and he could still get the 3% swing necessary to turn things around.
That sounds appalling and (imo) unacceptable. You have to be able to see people who are dying. It should be an exception to any virus regime that you can do this.
My son in law's mother who has dementia and is in care was taken into hospital on Sunday and has lost the use of her right leg. The ambulance took 6 hours to come and she was then in A & E for 24 hours waiting for a ward.
When she went on the ward my son in law was told neither his sister or he could see her whilst she is in hospital. Yesterday the hospital said she had stopped eating and drinking and they could not get a line in and that she is failing. They said her daughter could come in after school today, (she is a teacher), just to see if she could provide some help in the situation
It is clear she will not be able to stay a long time at the hospital and my son in law knows it is very unlikely he will see his mother again
And his father is in care also and neither my son in law or his daughter have seen him in the last 14 days and they have not yet told him of the situation with their mother
The anguish in the family is very real and the feeling of being helpless all consuming
Very sorry to read this news @Big_G_NorthWales. These are grim times. Can't imagine what it is like not being able to see someone that close to you in hospital. Hope things improve for your family soon.
Thank you so much.
Many tears shed in the last day or two at the hopelessness of the situation.
Nobody should be prevented to be at the bedside of their mother's final days
I agree. Time for some perspective in these kinds of terrible situations.
Catching the bug and spreading it has killed off what little chance Trump still had. He now looks like a loser, and a mad loser at that.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
I am surprised by this actually, I thought he'd get a degree of sympathy for catching the virus. Boris certainly did here.
Boris showed contrition, real contrition, thanked his medics profusely, praised the NHS to the hilt, acknowledged the science about the virus, got real and serious about the virus and changed his and his Government's response.
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
Yes. About the only good moment, for Boris, during this pandemic, was his personal response to catching it. He made a couple of good speeches, he looked statesmanlike and gracious.
Trump has acted like a selfish lunatic, wilfully exposing his poor minions to a deadly disease, and practically boasting about it.
He's a fucking madman. I sometimes wonder if it would actually be Constitutional for the CIA to remove him by force, for the sake of the world.
25th Amendment?
Btw, we both underestimated the likely total number of US Covid deaths. (You said 175k, I went for 200k). What do we think now? I guess it depends on whether the lunatic stays in the asylum or sleepy Joe gets his turn. I'll go for 400,000 if it's Trump, bit less for Biden, say 375,000.
The increasingly accurate Uni of Washington Covid model predicts 363,000 for the USA by Jan 1, 2021. Feels about right
The national polls are looking horrific for Trump with several double digits leads for Biden recently, but state polls in the battleground states are not too bad for him and he could still get the 3% swing necessary to turn things around.
Indeed, the key is Pence needs to win tonight's VP debate to steady the ship then Trump needs to look Presidential in the 2nd and 3rd debates and adopt a tone and message more appealing to the key swing voters he has lost to Biden ie suburban women and independent voters in particular
Face Masks, Public Policies and Slowing the Spread of COVID-19: Evidence from Canada https://www.nber.org/papers/w27891#fromrss We estimate the impact of mask mandates and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on COVID-19 case growth in Canada, including regulations on businesses and gatherings, school closures, travel and self-isolation, and long-term care homes. We partially account for behavioral responses using Google mobility data. Our identification approach exploits variation in the timing of indoor face mask mandates staggered over two months in the 34 public health regions in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. We find that, in the first few weeks after implementation, mask mandates are associated with a reduction of 25 percent in the weekly number of new COVID-19 cases. Additional analysis with province-level data provides corroborating evidence. Counterfactual policy simulations suggest that mandating indoor masks nationwide in early July could have reduced the weekly number of new cases in Canada by 25 to 40 percent in mid-August, which translates into 700 to 1,100 fewer cases per week.
Comments
My average is at 5.2
We could have another grim, fractious six months and wish that we'd done better work on a test, trace and isolate system in the autumn.
Add to that the visceral, extreme and total hatred of the media for Trump. I mean they have disliked republican presidents in the past. But Trump is at a complete other level. Even Fox have only one or two pro-Trump presenters.
As a polling company in the pay of the media, its just too easy to serve up good polls for Biden. If he loses, so what.
Imagine serving up a bad poll for the man three weeks out and Biden wins anyway. A whole day of awkward coverage for a man the presenters simply cannot, cannot even abide. Even bear thinking about.
That's a contract losing move, right there.
Because the alternative is full lockdown when no one gets to do any of that stuff.
OK then the question is for how long and that is pertinent. Perhaps we wait for a vaccine, perhaps the virus just dwindles of its own accord. And it is also a tough ask because you are saying to a cohort (1.5m strong AAUI from @Philip_Thompson) you must give up certain activities.
But at the right price there will be takers. Which may or may not be the time to mention immigration.
* He has plently to answer for as it is, there's no need for adding things he didn't do to the pile.
Well, maybe it won't, but neither do repeated lockdowns.
They destroy the economy and cause non-covid harm and yet we seem to be hooked on them as the one and only thing we can do. Even though they provably are not a solution.
So yes, we need to start looking at alternatives.
My point is that no one has seriously looked at risk segmentation and your original claim that it has been answered isn't correct. It has been rejected out of hand, unnecessarily because politicians are afraid of the headlines.
However, the bald facts are.
Cases are rising. You, and many others, want restrictions loosened.
How would you better describe what then would happen, given all the available evidence, in very simple terms?
Yes my theory was 2016 less one of the midwestern states.
That's not a prediction by the way – just a rationale for my covering bet.
Just over a week later Biden had pretty much wrapped up the nomination, it shows how quickly things can change.
A lot of polling companies are not healthy organisations these days, and certainly less so than four years ago. Margins have collapsed, staff have been juniorised and there is a shift in emphasis to the mining of data than anything else (ps yes, YouGov actually are doing very well).
Political polling doesn't make that much in the way of margins and, as Contrarian said, I can't imagine the NYT readership is going to be too chuffed if all they see are polls showing Trump holding his own vs Biden. There is an incentive there to downplay any positive results. And, if he wins, well you blame it on "shy Trumpsters" and come up with an excuse why your model was somehow right.
Which is not to say that the polls are deliberately skewed. However, I would take exception with the belief that polling companies should be treated as necessarily reliable.
As I have said endlessly, I would explore risk segmentation as a strategy, rather than use lockdowns as the only lever in the machine.
That was his final USP: he was a winner! Not any more.
https://twitter.com/Stoviesplz/status/1313865062407340034?s=20
Yet another journo carelessly using the term 'herd immunity'. It is not a strategy it is a fact of viral infections. At some point it is reached one way or another.
I have friends and acquaintances in arguably even worse circumstances, as they are much younger but face equally terrible trauma. Tough times indeed.
(or neither)
So, for example, if Biden were behind then you would see arguments that it proved he should be more radical to excite young voters, or he should focus his agenda on Union workers, or he needs to pledge to bring American soldiers home, or Warren should have been the nominee, etc.
I think there would be a market for that at CNN, or the NYT, the whole lot of them.
Rasmussen National Poll - Biden +12
Many tears shed in the last day or two at the hopelessness of the situation.
Nobody should be prevented to be at the bedside of their mother's final days
The Red Wall is re-secured
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/519939-trump-statistically-tied-with-biden-in-arizona-district-he-won-by-11-points
When seen in conjunction with this, not a good morning for Trump:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/07/politics/trump-tax-returns-subpoena-ruling/index.html
The main difference was higher turnout amongst Democrats in 2016 than 2016 Trump voters and a few 2016 did not votes or third party voters voting Democrat
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls
https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1312437371460173825
This sort of situation makes my very angry. My thoughts to you and yours, BGN
https://twitter.com/carlyfiorina/status/1313472997458694150?s=21
It will be a landslide.
https://twitter.com/ArmandoNDK/status/1313814757087027208?s=20
Perhaps he has been such a total twat about it that he doesn't get the sympathy vote.
The Government has lost control
Trump has done the exact opposite of all those things.
They did say if it does not work none of the others around the world will either as they are all basically using the same science (apart from the Imperial one which is a very long shot).
This person thinks if that happens we are back to herd immunity and a lot of deaths as pretty much all western countries have basically had a policy of supress and wait for the vaccine.
Make of it what you will
Of course, yes the administration could try to act extra-legally and announce it's suspending Congress and taking the legal authority to tax and spend upon itself. Maybe even SCOTUS would sign off on that, although even a court composed entirely of clones of the late Antonin Scalia would probably baulk at that.
But at that point the whole US Constitution would be de facto suspended. And that is the point where the entire US armed forces would intervene, as they have all sworn an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". And that part occurs before the part about obeying the President's orders.
Trump has acted like a selfish lunatic, wilfully exposing his poor minions to a deadly disease, and practically boasting about it.
He's a fucking madman. I sometimes wonder if it would actually be Constitutional for the CIA to remove him by force, for the sake of the world.
Election Officials Are Preparing for Potential Unrest at the Polls
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/us/politics/voter-intimidation-harassment-election.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
He's handled this virus badly, but he was good at at that one thing.
Just a zillion zillion miles from this utter moron in the White House.
The other thing about his lunacy is the super spread in the White House. So the story isn't just about this moron but his, sometimes unfortunate, staffers who were coerced into not being protective. Masks were seen as disloyalty and weakness.
The man's beyond a disgrace and I think Americans have seen right through it finally.
Just go heavy on the cities and light on the 'burbs and the countryside.
Some of the Biden friendly polls also have massive turnout increase assumptions. For BIDEN? well maybe....
Biden 52
Trump 40
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Arizona for starters ...
‘It’s been so, so surreal.’ Critics of Sweden’s lax pandemic policies face fierce backlash
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/10/it-s-been-so-so-surreal-critics-sweden-s-lax-pandemic-policies-face-fierce-backlash
...The frontal attack violated one of Sweden’s strongest cultural norms, the taboo on open disagreement, says Andrew Ewing, an analytical chemist at the University of Gothenburg who moved to Sweden from the United States 13 years ago. If a disagreement does arise, “you can never make it personal,” says Ewing, who was not part of the original 22 but has since joined the Vetenskapsforum.
“When the debate started, harsh words were exchanged,” says Göran Hansson, a cardiac specialist at KI and secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. But the debate is important, he adds. “Maybe Sweden has too much of a consensus culture. … It’s healthy for science to have discussions. One thing we don’t need in this situation is silencing of views, especially from those with expertise.”
Healthy or not, Brusselaers says she also faced backlash from colleagues and was publicly reprimanded by her department chair for being a “troublemaker” and “a danger to society.” “A colleague told me, ‘We have to stick with [FoHM] and defend it,’” she says. The situation prompted her to return to her native Belgium, where she now has a position at the University of Antwerp, although she is also keeping her group at KI. “I just didn’t expect this reaction in Sweden,” she says. “I never felt like such a foreigner as I did over the past few months.”
Those who challenged the recommendations against face masks faced a similar backlash. Agnieszka Howoruszko, an ophthalmologist at a regional hospital in Landskrona, began to wear a mask in March when she examined patients. “My manager reprimanded me twice,” she says. Howoruszko held her ground. “I said, ‘I’m sorry, if I can’t wear it, I cannot work. Many of my patients are elderly and in high-risk groups.” The manager relented and allowed the clinic’s doctors (but not other staff) to wear masks. “We are the only eye clinic in our province” to take that step, she says...
Btw, we both underestimated the likely total number of US Covid deaths. (You said 175k, I went for 200k). What do we think now? I guess it depends on whether the lunatic stays in the asylum or sleepy Joe gets his turn. I'll go for 400,000 if it's Trump, bit less for Biden, say 375,000.
That sounds appalling and (imo) unacceptable. You have to be able to see people who are dying. It should be an exception to any virus regime that you can do this.
https://twitter.com/fttechnews/status/1313821403326619648?s=20
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1313844025296789505
For the UK it is a very grim 115,000
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
2,500 Likely Voters
Sept 30 to Oct 6
So it was partially done before the move away from Trump in the last few days!
https://www.nber.org/papers/w27891#fromrss
We estimate the impact of mask mandates and other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) on COVID-19 case growth in Canada, including regulations on businesses and gatherings, school closures, travel and self-isolation, and long-term care homes. We partially account for behavioral responses using Google mobility data. Our identification approach exploits variation in the timing of indoor face mask mandates staggered over two months in the 34 public health regions in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. We find that, in the first few weeks after implementation, mask mandates are associated with a reduction of 25 percent in the weekly number of new COVID-19 cases. Additional analysis with province-level data provides corroborating evidence. Counterfactual policy simulations suggest that mandating indoor masks nationwide in early July could have reduced the weekly number of new cases in Canada by 25 to 40 percent in mid-August, which translates into 700 to 1,100 fewer cases per week.