YouGov’s US election model is just out and projects a Biden landslide – politicalbetting.com

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

alex_ said:

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.

Out of about two million students total

According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.

Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.

Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.

The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1315719803852726272

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

FrankBooth said:

Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.

The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.

Are you sure?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.

That's the American not the British.

Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.

The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.

I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)

They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.

I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.

What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.

Andy_JS said:

Is there a map anywhere showing which tier an area has been placed in?

Bozo said there would be an online enter your postcode thing 'soon'.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/GregBirks/status/1315623955991080961

Very good.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Dishi Rishi again way better than Boris.

He is the future

Heir apparent is a dangerous role to hold.

FrankBooth said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

FrankBooth said:

Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.

The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.

Are you sure?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.

That's the American not the British.

Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.

The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.

I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)

They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.

I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.

What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.

If HMQ is expected to know this information then it makes sense Charles gets the information too since at a second's notice he could be HMK (is that the right acronym?)

Casino_Royale said:

FrankBooth said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

FrankBooth said:

Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.

The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.

Are you sure?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.

That's the American not the British.

Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.

The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.

I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)

They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.

I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.

What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.

Charles will be taking over soon. He needs to be well briefed and understand the issues in play.

William needs training for his future role, which will come around sooner than we think and he could be taking up over anything from a 10-30 year horizon.

With a pandemic on better start George on training too, just in case.

No, bit early for April fool.

nichomar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

Not quite.

It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.

Care to elaborate?

It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.

In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊

If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.

There's much more potential split ticketing.

Don’t forget the local dog catcher as well.

He's been hounded out of office.

TimT said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/GregBirks/status/1315623955991080961

Racial stereotyping with Rishi's job much?

Nah, he used to be a waiter.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18237824.chancellor-rishi-sunak-did-shifts-fun-southampton-indian-restaurant/

JohnLilburne said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FrankBooth said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

FrankBooth said:

Completely off topic - there was a rather good documentary on Channel 5 last night regarding the Princess Diana Panorama documentary. You might wonder what this has to do with politics. I'll come to that. I remember as a thirteen year old boarding school boy being rather uninterested in it - but a few of the older lads talked about it with the consensus being she'd been treated badly by her husband or maybe the Windsors as a whole. I know documentaries exaggerate but what seemed remarkable was how clandestine the whole episode was. Martin Bashir and his cameraman turned up disguised as hi fi salesmen. There is a degree of suspicion around Bashir who appears to play on Charles Spencer’s fears that he is being bugged by MI5. Were they distracted in their focus on the growing threat of Islamist terror into trying to defend the reputation of Charles Windsor?

Virtually no-one at the BBC knew what was happening and the director general even felt the need to hide it from the Chairman, the laughably named Marmaduke Hussey, who if he had been aware would likely have tried to stop it. Hussey's wife incidentally was a lady in waiting to the Queen. He's also been appointed to chair the BBC by that well known class warrior Margaret Thatcher. His attitude to a free media being unclear it would seem. He tried to get revenge on Director General John Birt afterwards lying to Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore that Birt had been forced to apologise to the BBC board in the hope that such embarrassment would cause Birt to resign. As it was the board had no interest in Hussey's protestations and he himself resigned soon afterwards.

After making the programme Panorama editor Steve Hewlitt was so concerned that they were being watched he hired someone to the edit the tape in a hotel in Eastbourne. Diana of course believed she was being bugged by the security services, about which she may have been right and that lack of trust arguably lead towards her death as she dispensed with their support. It all strikes me now as bizarre. At the time I probably had a vague sense of 'well it may be toe-curling but this is Britain, wart's and all, you can say what you want about whomever you want without fear of repercussion. The idea that a substantial part of the establishment would be hostile to such disclosures and the quaint royals would ruthlessly look to suppress it would have struck me as absurd. Was Diana about to make some earth shattering revelations? Detail incidences of satanic abuse, murder, criminality and corruption? Were these the secrets the House of Windsor couldn't allow to become public. Well no. It turns out what she had to tell us is that she didn't feel they had treated her well, were uncaring she wasn't sure Charles would make a good king. It now all seems rather tame although Nicholas Soames was quickly out of the blocks on Newsnight suggesting she must be unhinged.

The security services had and have far better things to do than bug Princess Diana.

Are you sure?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen

The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.

That's the American not the British.

Some Americans seem to think royals are far more important than they actually are.

The Queen and several other Royals receive daily briefings from the government and the intelligence services.

I think that's why Mrs Thatcher exploded at the idea of Anthony Blunt being that close to the Queen, he could view those papers (and pass them on.)

They will vary. Charles and the Queen will get similar (although not identical ones) whilst William probably gets a simpler digest.

I doubt Andrew, Edward or Harry get anything at all.

What is the need for this? I mean Charles and William anyway. I understand things relating to their own security but more generally. We aren't in a regency.

If HMQ is expected to know this information then it makes sense Charles gets the information too since at a second's notice he could be HMK (is that the right acronym?)

It's quicker than that. Royalty moves faster than the speed of light. George VI died and HM became Queen instantaneously. In Kenya.

They must have been in a state of quantum entanglement.

TimT said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/GregBirks/status/1315623955991080961

Racial stereotyping with Rishi's job much?

Hardly. Its a shot of him serving food in Wagamama.

IanB2 said:

alex_ said:

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.

Out of about two million students total

According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.

Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.

Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.

The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?

Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)

TimT said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/GregBirks/status/1315623955991080961

Racial stereotyping with Rishi's job much?

No. He's East African Punjabi. Not Japanese.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TimT said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/GregBirks/status/1315623955991080961

Racial stereotyping with Rishi's job much?

Nah, he used to be a waiter.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18237824.chancellor-rishi-sunak-did-shifts-fun-southampton-indian-restaurant/

Alongside that story is this story which is equally impressive in a different way

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18787219.knowle-convenience-store-owes-345k-unpaid-tax/

IanB2 said:

As I said earlier, Boris's political weakness shined through today's debate in various ways. His political strength and capital and credibility amongst colleagues is all gone.

To which the question must be, are they only keeping him in place now to take all the blame?

Andy_JS said:

"What tier is your area in?

Local authorities in the Liverpool City Region will be put under the highest alert level, tier three. The affected boroughs are Liverpool, Knowsley, Wirral, St Helens, Sefton and Halton.

The areas in tier two are Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Warrington, Derbyshire, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East, Tees Valley, West Midlands, Leicester and Nottingham.

The rest of England has been placed under the medium alert level - tier one."

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/three-tier-lockdown-map-system-which-tier-local-area-b990602.html

I assume "West Midlands" means Birmingham, Solihull, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell, and doesn't also include Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire.

Great, so as you were in London then. Rumours nonsense?

IanB2 said:

alex_ said:

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.

Out of about two million students total

According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.

Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.

Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.

The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?

Those figures don't look correct.

alex_ said:

IanB2 said:

alex_ said:

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.

Out of about two million students total

According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.

Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.

Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.

The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?

Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)

You're right to challenge the quarter of a million figure - it's the ONS estimate for the last week, but is apples and pears compared to the 9,000, which is actual confirmed infections. You can probably double the student figure to allow for unidentified infections, which magnifies the student epidemic a little, whilst it still being a small part of the picture.

The spreadsheet error mostly affected the North West and not just students.

alex_ said:

IanB2 said:

alex_ said:

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.

Out of about two million students total

According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.

Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.

Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.

The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?

Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)

IanB2 is clearly not comparing like with like. A quarter of a million new infections is some made-up conjecture and at 36,000 a day way in advance of the tested total. Whereas 9,000 is probably a figure plucked out of his arse, or if not something like *positive tests known to be students*

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1315721813029269505

Because what he signed off is not the baseline?

Another BoZo press conference that generates more questions than answers...

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1315725297543774208

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1315725143428268036

JohnLilburne said:

alex_ said:

IanB2 said:

alex_ said:

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.

Out of about two million students total

According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.

Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.

Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.

The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?

Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)

IanB2 is clearly not comparing like with like. A quarter of a million new infections is some made-up conjecture and at 36,000 a day way in advance of the tested total. Whereas 9,000 is probably a figure plucked out of his arse, or if not something like *positive tests known to be students*

"some made-up conjecture " -> the official ONS estimate
"a figure plucked out of his arse" -> announced by the Education Minister in the Commons earlier

Otherwise, fair challenge

FrancisUrquhart said:

Peston using 1000 words to ask a 10 word question....

The Neil Kinnock school of linguistics.

Scott_xP said:

Another BoZo press conference that generates more questions than answers...

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1315725297543774208

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1315725143428268036

I blame Steve Rotherham.

MrEd said:

FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/miwi1020-crosstabs/b0a09cd1cd0048df/full.pdf

James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.

Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan

Credit where it’s due, you highlighted that Peters might be in trouble a couple of weeks back. I think he’ll hold on but might ruin the Dems night if he loses and they fail to win the Senate

TimT said:

JohnLilburne said:

TimT said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/GregBirks/status/1315623955991080961

Racial stereotyping with Rishi's job much?

No. He's East African Punjabi. Not Japanese.

I find the precision of the denials interesting.

Yup. If he was a Bangladeshi and it was an Indian restaurant that would be racial stereotyping. Or if it showed him as a corner shop owner or a GP (as his dad was)

I wonder what the likes of Whitty would be proposing if there was not some semblance of need to maintain a functional economy. Would they just have had us holed up in our own houses for 12 months, maybe a wee break in July before back in the box?

It sort of feels like that's the subtext of these briefings - the scientists basically trying to push the government to write the cheques needed to close the whole country down (without being too openly contradictory to the strategy du jour) and the politicians knowing that they simply can't, at least not for any length of time.

Pulpstar said:

MrEd said:

FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/miwi1020-crosstabs/b0a09cd1cd0048df/full.pdf

James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.

Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan

Peters seems to be a weak candidate from what I can gather on twitter. OTOH The Dems have a shot at Kansas https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20201008_KS.pdf

The line chart in that pdf makes me want to vomit.

American polling is an abomination.

IanB2 said:

JohnLilburne said:

alex_ said:

IanB2 said:

alex_ said:

Given the apparently massive infection rate of spreading through students, there must be a serious chance that the peak of virus in some of these university towns might be very rapid and fizzle away before we know it?

9,000 of the quarter of a million new infections over the last week were students.

Out of about two million students total

According to government figures mentioned in the commons today.

Do the maths and the infection rate among students is basically neither much higher nor much lower than par.

Suggesting the whole student thing is a red herring.

The only data I have seen to the contrary (aside from the anecdote of a uni in Nottingham, where there is clearly a big problem) compared local authority areas with universities to those without. The former had many more infections - from which it seems to have been assumed that the problem is the universities themselves. Perhaps, people have overlooked that universities are almost all located in big cities?

Fair enough, but - there were a quarter of a million infections last week? Where did that figure come from? And also how does it explain the massive jump in figures in the last week of September caused by the spreadsheet error (or was that not caused by university data?)

IanB2 is clearly not comparing like with like. A quarter of a million new infections is some made-up conjecture and at 36,000 a day way in advance of the tested total. Whereas 9,000 is probably a figure plucked out of his arse, or if not something like *positive tests known to be students*

"some made-up conjecture " -> the official ONS estimate
"a figure plucked out of his arse" -> announced by the Education Minister in the Commons earlier

Otherwise, fair challenge

Regardless, completely different types of figures that simply shouldn't be quoted on the same page, let alone compared. And if only 9000 students have had it, we should be encouraging them to have more sex.

SandyRentool said:

nichomar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

Am I right in suggesting that this is the model that got the 2017 UK election result pretty much spot on?

Not quite.

It uses different variables and methodology, because Great Britain and the US have a different electoral geography.

Care to elaborate?

It's a mixture of lower turnout in America (so they have to tweak that more in America, which increases the possibility of errors.)

There's also the issue that in some states you cannot ask mail in voters how they HAVE voted, so that skews the model, particularly in a pandemic world.

As a general rule there's only one or two elections on UK general election, for some Americans there's many more, and the possibility of split ticketing could skew the model, so they have to make assumptions for that too.

We don't have much split ticketing in the UK.

In 2015 I voted Green in the GE and Labour for Newcastle City Council. 😊

If you're really lucky in America, next month you'll have votes for President, Senate, Congressional, Governor, State Houses/Senate races.

There's much more potential split ticketing.

Don’t forget the local dog catcher as well.

He's been hounded out of office.

I thing you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was shocked and stressed by the 7 pm government presentation. These are difficult times and it’s inevitable that the government’s announcements add to our worries.

But Rishi Sunak has tipped me into another level of stress with his, “Thanks PM”, schtick. Since when was this an appropriate way to address the highest elected person in our democracy?

Sunak has become “Will” from “The Inbetweeners” when he addresses the headmaster with, “”Thanks Phil”.

I now need to go and lie down now. Breathe slowly, calmly, deeply. It will be alright.

algarkirk said:

Sunak's communication style is so Blair like I keep expecting him to announce that we are invading a large middle eastern country. But he is a fantastically good communicator.

Interesting that the only revelation at the press conference was the aside from Whitty that everyone agrees this can't work. Which is certainly how it seemed to a lot of people - as, Liverpool apart, it barely changes anything.

I expect they might be targeting smaller local areas of total lockdown where necessary. Maybe more draconian than the national one.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1315729048190976000

I guess they considered level 4, but then decided very very high might not be the clearest name.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Johnson says lockdown "right now" not right, well that's already a backtracking

I guess they want to keep it in their back pocket, just in case.

JohnLilburne said:

algarkirk said:

Sunak's communication style is so Blair like I keep expecting him to announce that we are invading a large middle eastern country. But he is a fantastically good communicator.

Interesting that the only revelation at the press conference was the aside from Whitty that everyone agrees this can't work. Which is certainly how it seemed to a lot of people - as, Liverpool apart, it barely changes anything.

I expect they might be targeting smaller local areas of total lockdown where necessary. Maybe more draconian than the national one.

It feels sub-optimal to make a big announcement fuss today if you know you have to do it all again in a few days when you turn up the heat. It confuses what is already incomprehensible; and today actually changed almost nothing for almost everyone.

MrEd said:

MrEd said:

FYI, NYT / Siena poll out for the Michigan Siena race - Peters only now +1 ahead of James. That follows the CBS poll yesterday that showed Peters only at +3. Note 13% of the respondents in the NYT said refused / don't know

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/miwi1020-crosstabs/b0a09cd1cd0048df/full.pdf

James did this last time with Stabenow where he ended up strong and came in closer than expected. It looks the same pattern here and he started out less behind with Peters than he did with Stabenow.

Interestingly, the same NYT poll gives Biden as +8 in Michigan

Sorry meant Senate race not Siena race

Re homelessness in LA.

There is a serious homelessness problem in Southern California, but I'm not convinced it's homegrown.

Simply: there are many parts of the US where the weather is such that being homeless is incredibly difficult. Homeless in Minneapolis or Denver or Salt Lake City - die of cold in the winter. Homeless in Phoenix or Las Vegas or Dallas - die of heat exhaustion in the summer.

If you speak to the homeless, how many are Californians? And how many are people with mental and drug issues who have migrated to cities which (a) have good opportunities for panhandling and (b) are temperate enough to live in?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

If we're on the subject, I am currently projecting Biden 291 - 247 Trump.

I'm at 290-161 with 87 too close to call at this time.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1315729048190976000

The government clearly feels it doesnt have the capital to push restrictions any further without buyin from the local authorities themselves. If you listen to the PM opening the Commons debate earlier, he as good as says as much.

The Tier 2 is actually a marginal relaxation for those areas already under local restrictions, and my guess is that the intention was to move the whole of the North into Tier 3 until Burnham started gathering the locals in opposition. Liverpool seems to have been caught out when the government dropped the rest of the North and is now trying to row back on whatever it said to government in private.

The irony is that, had local authorities been allowed to lead in the first place, many of them might well have followed public opinion in moving faster toward local restrictions. But since the government has kept everything under very centralised control, they clearly don't feel minded to give a discredited government political cover by rubber stamping something being imposed on them.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1315709459210080257?s=21

Captain Abstain strikes again.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

So these measures are not going to work as I said earlier. Looks like my suggestion that a national lockdown is coming and the experts know it, was not too far off the mark

They have yet to be implemented, so I am not sure how you can confidently claim that.