The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You clearly don't understand the 538 model if your takeaway is simply "they got it wrong".
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
Because he's not a polling font, he's as biased as the rest of us and is trying to convince people with his agenda. No problem with that, it's the "font" and impartiality angle I take issue with
The "right" will attack "activist lawyers" for exploiting loopholes for human rights purposes whilst simultaneously supporting corporations for exploiting tax loopholes, claiming that if people want them to pay tax, they need to change the tax system.
We really are heading towards a national lockdown.
I'm sure we are. The only question is whether it is worth trying regional lockdowns or not first. Other places have them but do they work here and if not why?
I don't think we'll have another national lockdown with the scope of the first one. For example, I don't think schools will close, nor shops, nor offices. What might happen imo is hospitality and leisure gets the bullet again for a while.
Hospitalisations are also going up though, so the rates of infection must be going up, surely?
So get Whitty and Vallance to talk about hospitalisations then.
Even that has problems as Heneghan has been exploring. Many of these + cases in hospital went in with something else, had a test on entry, were found to be + and then apparently their existing condition is effectively removed from the record and they are marked as a 'covid patient' even if they have no respiratory illness.
The country is being locked down region by region based on data that is not fit for purpose.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
A lockdown is when your are not allowed to leave your home except for food and medicine. There's never been a lockdown in the UK, and nothing suggested today is going to come close to one.
They'd be in for a real shock if they needed to apply to their local constabulary for a permit to go out for shopping, and be limited to two of those per week.
Well quite, some of had nearly a month of that back in April, followed by a couple months more of a 10pm curfew.
The suggestion of traffic-light restrictions by county or city does appear to strike the balance between keeping infection rates down and the economy running, but is going to require more policing of borders than has been seen before. It will, of course, be way too complicated for closed-minded Lobby hacks to understand.
The "right" will attack "activist lawyers" for exploiting loopholes for human rights purposes whilst simultaneously supporting corporations for exploiting tax loopholes, claiming that if people want them to pay tax, they need to change the tax system.
☢️ Hypocrisy alert. Hypocrisy alert. ☢️
Why not criticise both ?
You certainly can. However the simple solution to both problems, rather than perpetual whining, is to simply change the law.
I could cash out my Biden EC supremacy for £1,965 and this would constitute one of my biggest ever profits on a single politics spread bet. But I'm not closing it. I'm letting it run. So if it turns out I'm calling this election wrong and Trump wins I will require a revolver and a tumbler of Teachers. Mind you, I'd probably need that anyway, with the prospect of 4 more years of him, regardless of my betting result. I once did a thought experiment whereby I asked myself, if I could pay a sum of money and by doing so ensure the defeat of Donald Trump at the polls in November 2020, how much would I be prepared to pay? The answer I came up with - and this is totally serious - is £25,000. For comparison, my similar answer for Remain to have won the Ref in 2016 and Labour to have won either the 17 or 19 general elections is only £5,000 and £10,000 respectively. On a more micro level - and in reference to the PT - I would pay £100 to have Priti Patel replaced as Home Secretary by somebody less illiberal and with more brains, but if it were simply a like-for-like swap then, no, my wallet would stay closed. But anyway, all hypothetical.
I wonder about this too sometimes. 25 grand seems a bit on the low side tbh, I suspect I have less money than you but would still happily go higher!
I find it interesting to ponder because it merges political outcome with personal impact in a very direct way. I suppose doing it by % of net liquid assets would be more meaningful. Can't do that now since it would be TMI but I do take that point. And if you "beat" me on this re Trump out - especially on the % metric - well this would be definitive proof that it means even more to you than it does to me. In which case hats off and you are an individual of the highest calibre.
Thanks. One other factor - it is perhaps more to do with being young... fewer responsibilities and more time to earn back the cash.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
I'm not Starmer's greatest fan, but there are at least hints that he has, and had, more of a clue about what needed to be done on testing. Plenty of other mistakes, but that has been probably the biggest single failure of this government.
Whether he'd have been more proactive on anything else than our utterly reactive government has been is a good question. Possibly.
Hospitalisations are also going up though, so the rates of infection must be going up, surely?
So get Whitty and Vallance to talk about hospitalisations then.
Even that has problems as Heneghan has been exploring. Many of these + cases in hospital went in with something else, had a test on entry, were found to be + and then apparently their existing condition is effectively removed from the record and they are marked as a 'covid patient' even if they have no respiratory illness.
The country is being locked down region by region based on data that is not fit for purpose.
Hospitalisations were discussed at the briefing this morning. But as cases go up, so eventually do hospitalisations. It may not be a 1:1 correlation but it is certainly an early warning sign.
Well thats long Covid. Which might have even more of an impact than the actual deaths.
Again, can we actually trust this data? Everyone who enters hospital is tested and if found + they are marked as 'covid' even if they went in for a broken leg and are asymptomatic for the virus.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
But do they really understand that it’s not wealth that’s being threatened? It’s basic livelihood of themselves and their family, give them six months on UC then they may think differently, they can’t sit at home doing sweet FA for ever and the financial reckoning will come. It won’t impact the Johnson class but will hit low to middle income families like a sledge hammer. But the pensioners with private schemes will be fine so no problem for the tories.
Well thats long Covid. Which might have even more of an impact than the actual deaths.
Again, can we actually trust this data? Everyone who enters hospital is tested and if found + they are marked as 'covid' even if they went in for a broken leg and are asymptomatic for the virus.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
The number of people requiring ventilation should give us a clue. That's also on the rise. Not as steeply, but I imagine it takes some time from admission to requiring ventilation.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary. You are wrong on Florida, Survey Monkey and ABC News have both had Trump ahead in Florida in the last few weeks for example. Quinnipiac of course wrongly had Hillary ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
Unclear whether we are at that point yet. But very clear what we are currently doing is insufficient.
Maybe Dido Harding & co can get this under control, but I suspect that the rise in cases is going to overwhelm them.
I think the 2 week circuit breaker lockdown idea has a lot of merit.
As an aside - the lockdown rules last time worked. I don't know that we need to go further than that (except in cases where we know more about how virus spreads). In some cases we should be able to do less. E.g. people can go for long walks in the countryside as much as they like.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
But do they really understand that it’s not wealth that’s being threatened? It’s basic livelihood of themselves and their family, give them six months on UC then they may think differently, they can’t sit at home doing sweet FA for ever and the financial reckoning will come. It won’t impact the Johnson class but will hit low to middle income families like a sledge hammer. But the pensioners with private schemes will be fine so no problem for the tories.
I honestly think people are scared and want restrictions and I cannot see that changing until this new outbreak is at least contained
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
By how much was the polling average wrong in 2016?
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
Unclear whether we are at that point yet. But very clear what we are currently doing is insufficient.
Maybe Dido Harding & co can get this under control, but I suspect that the rise in cases is going to overwhelm them.
I think the 2 week circuit breaker lockdown idea has a lot of merit.
As an aside - the lockdown rules last time worked. I don't know that we need to go further than that (except in cases where we know more about how virus spreads). In some cases we should be able to do less. E.g. people can go for long walks in the countryside as much as they like.
On topic: can anyone recommend a good boring individual state bet which is a proxy for backing Biden but which is immune from Biden actuarial risks *and* will stand in the event that Dems basically win, but Rep then steal it in the courts?
Well thats long Covid. Which might have even more of an impact than the actual deaths.
Again, can we actually trust this data? Everyone who enters hospital is tested and if found + they are marked as 'covid' even if they went in for a broken leg and are asymptomatic for the virus.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
I'm sorry but that's straw clutching. Everyone who enters hospitals has been tested for many months now - if it was all broken legs and equivalent then how do you explain this rise in broken legs and equivalent cases?
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
On topic: can anyone recommend a good boring individual state bet which is a proxy for backing Biden but which is immune from Biden actuarial risks *and* will stand in the event that Dems basically win, but Rep then steal it in the courts?
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
But do they really understand that it’s not wealth that’s being threatened? It’s basic livelihood of themselves and their family, give them six months on UC then they may think differently, they can’t sit at home doing sweet FA for ever and the financial reckoning will come. It won’t impact the Johnson class but will hit low to middle income families like a sledge hammer. But the pensioners with private schemes will be fine so no problem for the tories.
I honestly think people are scared and want restrictions and I cannot see that changing until this new outbreak is at least contained
One thought - *All* pensioners living on pensions, private and public - aren't going to see their income change. Not just the EvilRichTory ones. That is one of the features and desired functions of the pension system - stable income for old people - from the time of Bismark.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
"herd immunity .. is not going to happen" If so then there is no way out. But we might hope that a vaccine, if not widespread infection, will bring on herd immunity.
Well thats long Covid. Which might have even more of an impact than the actual deaths.
Again, can we actually trust this data? Everyone who enters hospital is tested and if found + they are marked as 'covid' even if they went in for a broken leg and are asymptomatic for the virus.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
The number of people requiring ventilation should give us a clue. That's also on the rise. Not as steeply, but I imagine it takes some time from admission to requiring ventilation.
That's a fair point. Although haven't the medics backed away from using ventilation as much with covid as it was found to cause problems?
I want two stats: admission to hospital solely with covid and admission to hospital with covid with another condition (and stats on the condition types). No doubt NHS and PHE have those stats but I want them shown and explained to the public. I want some sense of proportion in this debate. Maybe it is too much for most people (I accept that a lot of us on here are bit data-minded).
If someone is 89 years old and goes in with sepsis and then tests + and then passes away from sepsis then I don't think there should be a stat telling us they passed from covid without some additional nuance.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, non-student bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary. You are wrong on Florida, Survey Monkey and ABC News have both had Trump ahead in Florida in the last few weeks for example. Quinnipiac of course wrongly had Hillary ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Well thats long Covid. Which might have even more of an impact than the actual deaths.
Again, can we actually trust this data? Everyone who enters hospital is tested and if found + they are marked as 'covid' even if they went in for a broken leg and are asymptomatic for the virus.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
I'm sorry but that's straw clutching. Everyone who enters hospitals has been tested for many months now - if it was all broken legs and equivalent then how do you explain this rise in broken legs and equivalent cases?
Quite. The logical somersaults people go through to try to convince themselves that reality is what they want it to be are really quite impressive to watch.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
It's a big S tattooed on your forehead. Report to Micks House of Ink at 10am sharp!
Well thats long Covid. Which might have even more of an impact than the actual deaths.
Again, can we actually trust this data? Everyone who enters hospital is tested and if found + they are marked as 'covid' even if they went in for a broken leg and are asymptomatic for the virus.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
The number of people requiring ventilation should give us a clue. That's also on the rise. Not as steeply, but I imagine it takes some time from admission to requiring ventilation.
This seems a bit tenuous to me. I had a look. Manchester had 7 day average of 12 on 1st July. I then picked two london boroughs off top of my head: Hackney was 2 and Islington was 1. Ok, definitely a difference. But we are talking a handful of difference, nothing major.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, non-student bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary. You are wrong on Florida, Survey Monkey and ABC News have both had Trump ahead in Florida in the last few weeks for example. Quinnipiac of course wrongly had Hillary ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
As I posted Quinnipiac also got 2016 wrong, its final 2016 polls had Clinton ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania, so what is new? Why should they be trusted in those states this time?
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
Since when was a 'lock in' policed? Do you know what a 'lock in' is, it is the polar opposite of policed. The whole point of a 'lock in' was that you stay inside, have fun and don't draw the attention of the police.
I am saying that we should be encouraging students to stay in as much as possible, partying in flats, halls, student bars etc and as much as possible to voluntarily avoid shops, bars, restaurants etc
Instead we sees condemnatory reports of students getting pissed where they live in a flat or hall. That shouldn't be discouraged it should be encouraged. Tell them to go wild in their flats, mates flats, halls etc - have proper student fun. But advise them they can do what they like so long as they stay in but don't go out. We should be encouraging supermarkets etc to be delivering to students accomodations etc, put on cheap booze deals etc and encouraging people to be staying in until this burns through the student community.
On topic: can anyone recommend a good boring individual state bet which is a proxy for backing Biden but which is immune from Biden actuarial risks *and* will stand in the event that Dems basically win, but Rep then steal it in the courts?
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
Age specific confirmed case rate in England regions charts shown on this mornings briefing by Prof Van Tam should be essential viewing for everyone commenting on covid and these proposals
His explanation of them was clear and convincing and the North West is very scary
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
It's a big S tattooed on your forehead. Report to Micks House of Ink at 10am sharp!
It should be quite simple to geofence the students - use those animal shock collars that upset animal rights advocates. Step outside the student ghetto - get a shock.....
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
US elections are decided in the states not nationally and I have already said Biden will likely win the national popular vote as Hillary did even if Trump wins the EC again
One of the fallacies sometimes employed in economic policy arguments is the people could be different fallacy (see Harold Demsetz).
A variation of this fallacy often surfaces when we compare the Covid experiences of different countries. In this case it takes the obverse form of ignoring the real behavioural differences between peoples in different countries while assuming that the different Covid outcomes are entirely due to the policies enacted by governments. But while across countries the peoples are different, within a country its government has to enact policies for the given population.
The position I favour is to assume that each country's government knows its own population and tailors its policy with that in mind. They don't do this perfectly, or in some cases even adequately, but arguments which imply that we could adopt Swedish or Chinese or any other country's policy with the same results fallaciously ignore the fact that Swedes, Chinese etc are not Brits.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
Since when was a 'lock in' policed? Do you know what a 'lock in' is, it is the polar opposite of policed. The whole point of a 'lock in' was that you stay inside, have fun and don't draw the attention of the police.
I am saying that we should be encouraging students to stay in as much as possible, partying in flats, halls, student bars etc and as much as possible to voluntarily avoid shops, bars, restaurants etc
Instead we sees condemnatory reports of students getting pissed where they live in a flat or hall. That shouldn't be discouraged it should be encouraged. Tell them to go wild in their flats, mates flats, halls etc - have proper student fun. But advise them they can do what they like so long as they stay in but don't go out. We should be encouraging supermarkets etc to be delivering to students accomodations etc, put on cheap booze deals etc and encouraging people to be staying in until this burns through the student community.
Some cities don't really have "student bars". Newcastle for example. There are small bars in each student union but mostly students just use the bars in the city.
The fact is that students will simply ignore the "advice" because that's what students do.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Fair enough take. But politics does not work this way. When things go horribly run under a government the public do not conduct forensic counterfactuals asking themselves if the opposition would have been any better. For example, the financial crash and resulting economic downturn and crisis in the public finances which dominated the GE of 2010. There was no evidence that the situation would have been better or would have been better handled by a Cameron Conservative government rather than Brown's Labour one - the opposite if anything - but this did not prevent a narrative of "Labour's mess" taking root. Similarly here, regardless of how you think Starmer would have performed relative to Johnson, if this pans out as badly as it looks like doing, this government will own it.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
US elections are decided in the states not nationally and I have already said Biden will likely win the national popular vote as Hillary did even if Trump wins the EC again
Age specific confirmed case rate in England regions charts shown on this mornings briefing by Prof Van Tam should be essential viewing for everyone commenting on covid and these proposals
His explanation of them was clear and convincing and the North West is very scary
I thought Van Tam had been exiled to the gulags months ago.
Well thats long Covid. Which might have even more of an impact than the actual deaths.
Again, can we actually trust this data? Everyone who enters hospital is tested and if found + they are marked as 'covid' even if they went in for a broken leg and are asymptomatic for the virus.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
The number of people requiring ventilation should give us a clue. That's also on the rise. Not as steeply, but I imagine it takes some time from admission to requiring ventilation.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
US elections are decided in the states not nationally and I have already said Biden will likely win the national popular vote as Hillary did even if Trump wins the EC again
You still haven't told me.
It is largely irrelevant, though even the national polls slightly overestimated Hillary's national lead just not as much as they overestimated her lead in the key swing states which won Trump the election, especially in the rustbelt
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
This is just insanity. Absolutely ignorant nonsense. You just don't understand probability.
Let us say I have a fair dice I'm about to roll. Person 1 says there is a 5/6 chance of rolling less than a six and a 1/6 chance of rolling a six . . . and a second person says that there is a 70% chance of rolling a six and a 30% chance of rolling less than a six . . . and the fair dice is rolled and it happens to land on a six then who was correct? Person 1 or Person 2.
That's very bad if that's what happened, though I speak from experience that some people will swear blindly they were never consulted or asked to attend things or given proper notice of something which they then missed, even when confronted with the evidence otherwise.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
US elections are decided in the states not nationally and I have already said Biden will likely win the national popular vote as Hillary did even if Trump wins the EC again
Age specific confirmed case rate in England regions charts shown on this mornings briefing by Prof Van Tam should be essential viewing for everyone commenting on covid and these proposals
His explanation of them was clear and convincing and the North West is very scary
I thought Van Tam had been exiled to the gulags months ago.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, non-student bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
Yes and that's where government support is necessary, keep them socialising in SU bars, deliveries to campuses and registration of off campus residences for food and other deliveries. This is legitimately the best chance we have of getting anywhere near herd immunity for any cohort and the timing is perfect because we can use antibody serology testing to allow students to go home over the Christmas period safely.
We have an opportunity, hopefully it isn't wasted with unnecessary lockdowns of towns and cities which will cause untold economic and social damage. I was talking to some friends yesterday (in a front room, not a pub) and we all think the UK is now seeing irreparable social scarring because of these measures, the government are succeeding in making people scared of each other and that's not going to go away even after a vaccine, there has been a psychological change in how people see those around them and that's going to be really tough to reverse.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary. You are wrong on Florida, Survey Monkey and ABC News have both had Trump ahead in Florida in the last few weeks for example. Quinnipiac of course wrongly had Hillary ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
As I posted Quinnipiac also got 2016 wrong, its final 2016 polls had Clinton ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania, so what is new? Why should they be trusted in those states this time?
Someone being wrong last time, or right last time, is no guarantee they will be wrong, or right, this time. So on that logic why should you trust any of the other polls either?
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
The 538 prediction got Hillary's share almost perfect.
They got Trump's share too low, with Johnson's share too high.
So if there was an error it was on the Libertarian/GOP split not the GOP/Democrat split. Notable that there is extremely little Libertarian vote forecast to be squeezable.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
Herd immunity is the only way out BigG - probably via mass vaccination. However, will even this be the silver bullet it is hoped to be?
The length of time that it will take to vaccinate all in the population who agree to have it will be considerable. Many will not agree. A vaccine may only be effective for 12 months, it is likely that the early vaccinated will come off the 12 month protection before others get their first vaccination.
My concern is that even with a vaccine many will STILL be too fearful to emerge because not everyone is vaccinated in UK and overseas visitors may or may not be. No doubt there will be further media fear-mongering to keep the misery going.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
But do they really understand that it’s not wealth that’s being threatened? It’s basic livelihood of themselves and their family, give them six months on UC then they may think differently, they can’t sit at home doing sweet FA for ever and the financial reckoning will come. It won’t impact the Johnson class but will hit low to middle income families like a sledge hammer. But the pensioners with private schemes will be fine so no problem for the tories.
I honestly think people are scared and want restrictions and I cannot see that changing until this new outbreak is at least contained
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
"Probability is just back covering"?1?!?!? Probability is what odds are. Odds, as in betting, you know, as in the subject matter of this site. That is on a par with your assertion that you can avoid the Strait of Hormuz by going round the Cape.
I repeat the question.
What current data, without reference to 2016, do you rely upon in being bullish about Trump's chances?
Five days prior, Trafalgar had Roy Moore winning the 2017 special election by 3.1%. Even a stopped clock etc.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
Unless you are a business relying on the "student pound".
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
Since it will be necessary to develop a competent test, trace and isolate system in order to be able to end a lockdown, without that leading to a resurgence of the virus, I think it makes sense to enforce stricter lockdowns where those are necessary to ensure that hospitals do not become overwhelmed and can continue treating normal illnesses, and use other areas to practice doing test, trace and isolate properly.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
But do they really understand that it’s not wealth that’s being threatened? It’s basic livelihood of themselves and their family, give them six months on UC then they may think differently, they can’t sit at home doing sweet FA for ever and the financial reckoning will come. It won’t impact the Johnson class but will hit low to middle income families like a sledge hammer. But the pensioners with private schemes will be fine so no problem for the tories.
I honestly think people are scared and want restrictions and I cannot see that changing until this new outbreak is at least contained
You are Mark Drakeford, and I claim my £5!
No one is further removed from Drakeford than myself
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
Since when was a 'lock in' policed? Do you know what a 'lock in' is, it is the polar opposite of policed. The whole point of a 'lock in' was that you stay inside, have fun and don't draw the attention of the police.
I am saying that we should be encouraging students to stay in as much as possible, partying in flats, halls, student bars etc and as much as possible to voluntarily avoid shops, bars, restaurants etc
Instead we sees condemnatory reports of students getting pissed where they live in a flat or hall. That shouldn't be discouraged it should be encouraged. Tell them to go wild in their flats, mates flats, halls etc - have proper student fun. But advise them they can do what they like so long as they stay in but don't go out. We should be encouraging supermarkets etc to be delivering to students accomodations etc, put on cheap booze deals etc and encouraging people to be staying in until this burns through the student community.
Some cities don't really have "student bars". Newcastle for example. There are small bars in each student union but mostly students just use the bars in the city.
The fact is that students will simply ignore the "advice" because that's what students do.
This is where sadly potentially a Tier 3 lockdown may be necessary. If students won't get pissed at houseparties instead of going to the bars, then closing the bars will work in reducing the spread from students to the wider community.
Students will ignore the "advice" if they're advised not to get pissed. They won't just ignore all advice - you don't exactly see large number of students drink driving "because that's what students do", I have more respect for students than you do it seems.
If the advice for students is unrealistic it will be ignored. If you're telling them to live like nuns they're not going to. The advice needs to be realistic. "Stick to house parties for now, avoid bars for now" is more realistic than "don't party at all".
PS of course not all universities are the same. The University of Nottingham for instance has 13 bars on campus. Rather than social distancing, encouraging as many students as possible if they're going out to go there but then to avoid society for the next month will help this burn out quicker amongst students than just pretending they're not going to socialise.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
"Probability is just back covering"?1?!?!? Probability is what odds are. Odds, as in betting, you know, as in the subject matter of this site. That is on a par with your assertion that you can avoid the Strait of Hormuz by going round the Cape.
I repeat the question.
What current data, without reference to 2016, do you rely upon in being bullish about Trump's chances?
Five days prior, Trafalgar had Roy Moore winning the 2017 special election by 3.1%. Even a stopped clock etc.
Trump was not on the ballot in 2017 and even he did not endorse Roy Moore.
Trafalgar were the only state pollster to correctly have Trump winning an EC majority in 2016, end of conversation
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary. You are wrong on Florida, Survey Monkey and ABC News have both had Trump ahead in Florida in the last few weeks for example. Quinnipiac of course wrongly had Hillary ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
As I posted Quinnipiac also got 2016 wrong, its final 2016 polls had Clinton ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania, so what is new? Why should they be trusted in those states this time?
Old retailing rule. If someone complains, apologise, explain, compensate and you've made a customer.
So I would assume Quinnipiac have looked at WHY they got it wrong and will do better this time.
We need a national lockdown and we need it now, it is clear cases are continuing to rise and are still out of control. We have had local lockdowns for months and they have not helped.
If the Government hadn't been so incompetent and had got its act together in July, we wouldn't need this cause of action but alas they did not and hence we now need a new national lockdown.
The first thing is to close all restaurants and pubs down and provide immediate Government support.
What is your goal? It’s worth noting that the proportion of ICU patients that die of covid has already reduced by about a third since March/April, due to quite simple tweaks in intervention.
When we shortly have a vaccine that reduces IFR by say a further 50%, will that be enough for you to advocate living with the virus and people taking charge of their own destinies? Or do we need a vaccine that reduces IFR by 60%? 90%? 100%?!
Or is that you prefer to live in a state of perpetual mask wearing, social distancing, restricted social gathering and intermittent closure of the economy for its own end?
I am reminded of Macauley Culkin and his new roller skates in Home Alone. Never wore them because he didn’t want to make them dirty and then before he knew it he outgrew them. Life can be a bit like that.
There’s also a touch of Monty Python and the Four Yorkshireman going on with people getting affronted by the word “lockdown” because some countries had stricter lockdown laws than others.
“House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture”.
Outlawing families from seeing each other if they are more than 6 people is now considered normal even in “green” areas. I don’t care what you call it, lockdown or whatever else. It’s certainly not normal, democratic or desirable. And yes I am aware that the unimpeded spread covid causes an amount of excess death (we can argue the toss of how much).
Enough is enough. Time for this government to go and someone else to stand up and start treating everyone like grownups.
If you support herd immunity it is not going to happen
The public put health before wealth
But do they really understand that it’s not wealth that’s being threatened? It’s basic livelihood of themselves and their family, give them six months on UC then they may think differently, they can’t sit at home doing sweet FA for ever and the financial reckoning will come. It won’t impact the Johnson class but will hit low to middle income families like a sledge hammer. But the pensioners with private schemes will be fine so no problem for the tories.
I honestly think people are scared and want restrictions and I cannot see that changing until this new outbreak is at least contained
You are Mark Drakeford, and I claim my £5!
You have, Mr P probably been as offensive to Mr G as it is possible to be.
Comments
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1315572028699742215?s=20
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1315573007671275520?s=20
Even that has problems as Heneghan has been exploring. Many of these + cases in hospital went in with something else, had a test on entry, were found to be + and then apparently their existing condition is effectively removed from the record and they are marked as a 'covid patient' even if they have no respiratory illness.
The country is being locked down region by region based on data that is not fit for purpose.
The suggestion of traffic-light restrictions by county or city does appear to strike the balance between keeping infection rates down and the economy running, but is going to require more policing of borders than has been seen before. It will, of course, be way too complicated for closed-minded Lobby hacks to understand.
https://twitter.com/Kennyf1283/status/1315604328376348679?s=20
Plenty of other mistakes, but that has been probably the biggest single failure of this government.
Whether he'd have been more proactive on anything else than our utterly reactive government has been is a good question. Possibly.
How many of these people are actually ill with covid?
*Fake death is where Boris imprisons the people who have "died" in the basement of Pizza Express, Dean Street, in Soho.
then they may think differently, they can’t sit at home doing sweet FA for ever and the financial reckoning will come. It won’t impact the Johnson class but will hit low to middle income families like a sledge hammer. But the pensioners with private schemes will be fine so no problem for the tories.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
But very clear what we are currently doing is insufficient.
Maybe Dido Harding & co can get this under control, but I suspect that the rise in cases is going to overwhelm them.
I think the 2 week circuit breaker lockdown idea has a lot of merit.
As an aside - the lockdown rules last time worked. I don't know that we need to go further than that (except in cases where we know more about how virus spreads). In some cases we should be able to do less. E.g. people can go for long walks in the countryside as much as they like.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
If so then there is no way out.
But we might hope that a vaccine, if not widespread infection, will bring on herd immunity.
I want two stats: admission to hospital solely with covid and admission to hospital with covid with another condition (and stats on the condition types). No doubt NHS and PHE have those stats but I want them shown and explained to the public. I want some sense of proportion in this debate. Maybe it is too much for most people (I accept that a lot of us on here are bit data-minded).
If someone is 89 years old and goes in with sepsis and then tests + and then passes away from sepsis then I don't think there should be a stat telling us they passed from covid without some additional nuance.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
https://twitter.com/QuinnipiacPoll/status/1313903343006220288
Report to Micks House of Ink at 10am sharp!
They opened the South to help the economy. They opened the North and it killed people.
They should have kept both locked down.
I am saying that we should be encouraging students to stay in as much as possible, partying in flats, halls, student bars etc and as much as possible to voluntarily avoid shops, bars, restaurants etc
Instead we sees condemnatory reports of students getting pissed where they live in a flat or hall. That shouldn't be discouraged it should be encouraged. Tell them to go wild in their flats, mates flats, halls etc - have proper student fun. But advise them they can do what they like so long as they stay in but don't go out. We should be encouraging supermarkets etc to be delivering to students accomodations etc, put on cheap booze deals etc and encouraging people to be staying in until this burns through the student community.
His explanation of them was clear and convincing and the North West is very scary
A variation of this fallacy often surfaces when we compare the Covid experiences of different countries. In this case it takes the obverse form of ignoring the real behavioural differences between peoples in different countries while assuming that the different Covid outcomes are entirely due to the policies enacted by governments. But while across countries the peoples are different, within a country its government has to enact policies for the given population.
The position I favour is to assume that each country's government knows its own population and tailors its policy with that in mind. They don't do this perfectly, or in some cases even adequately, but arguments which imply that we could adopt Swedish or Chinese or any other country's policy with the same results fallaciously ignore the fact that Swedes, Chinese etc are not Brits.
The fact is that students will simply ignore the "advice" because that's what students do.
Let us say I have a fair dice I'm about to roll. Person 1 says there is a 5/6 chance of rolling less than a six and a 1/6 chance of rolling a six . . . and a second person says that there is a 70% chance of rolling a six and a 30% chance of rolling less than a six . . . and the fair dice is rolled and it happens to land on a six then who was correct? Person 1 or Person 2.
We have an opportunity, hopefully it isn't wasted with unnecessary lockdowns of towns and cities which will cause untold economic and social damage. I was talking to some friends yesterday (in a front room, not a pub) and we all think the UK is now seeing irreparable social scarring because of these measures, the government are succeeding in making people scared of each other and that's not going to go away even after a vaccine, there has been a psychological change in how people see those around them and that's going to be really tough to reverse.
They got Trump's share too low, with Johnson's share too high.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
So if there was an error it was on the Libertarian/GOP split not the GOP/Democrat split. Notable that there is extremely little Libertarian vote forecast to be squeezable.
The length of time that it will take to vaccinate all in the population who agree to have it will be considerable. Many will not agree. A vaccine may only be effective for 12 months, it is likely that the early vaccinated will come off the 12 month protection before others get their first vaccination.
My concern is that even with a vaccine many will STILL be too fearful to emerge because not everyone is vaccinated in UK and overseas visitors may or may not be. No doubt there will be further media fear-mongering to keep the misery going.
I repeat the question.
What current data, without reference to 2016, do you rely upon in being bullish about Trump's chances?
Five days prior, Trafalgar had Roy Moore winning the 2017 special election by 3.1%. Even a stopped clock etc.
Students will ignore the "advice" if they're advised not to get pissed. They won't just ignore all advice - you don't exactly see large number of students drink driving "because that's what students do", I have more respect for students than you do it seems.
If the advice for students is unrealistic it will be ignored. If you're telling them to live like nuns they're not going to. The advice needs to be realistic. "Stick to house parties for now, avoid bars for now" is more realistic than "don't party at all".
PS of course not all universities are the same. The University of Nottingham for instance has 13 bars on campus. Rather than social distancing, encouraging as many students as possible if they're going out to go there but then to avoid society for the next month will help this burn out quicker amongst students than just pretending they're not going to socialise.
Trafalgar were the only state pollster to correctly have Trump winning an EC majority in 2016, end of conversation
So I would assume Quinnipiac have looked at WHY they got it wrong and will do better this time.