Looks like Labour will have lot on their 'own plate' this Thursday at 11.00am when the ECHR is published
So much build up almost anything could be a damp squib, bizarrely.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
Starmer may well have to sack well known mps from Labour otherwise he will forever be embroiled with it
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
I didn't know Bernard Manning style humour was coming back into fashion....a couple of weeks ago, it was kill whiteys, was the side splitting punch line, now...
Presenter Tom Price chuckled as comedian Leila Navabi accused Mr Sunak of “not representing most brown people”.
She went on to joke: “Rishi Sunak represents a lot of things for us as a society, not least what Prince Charles would look like in brownface.”
Well, she was right about the 50p coin thing that is referenced being virtue signalling, but this is codswallop A BBC spokesman said: “In this instance, we believe that the comedian, who was a guest on the programme, was suggesting that Prince Charles and the Chancellor have a passing resemblance.
Personally I cannot see the resemblance even in passing, but each to their own. Seems more likely when someone is upset about 'X not representing group Y' well enough they simply have very weird expectations of how people should behave based on their ethnicity.
And of course Tories will overreact to comments from a comedian, but my word as a society we can be clumsy on race, and send some very mixed signals about it not mattering, or mattering more than anything.
I presume it supposed to play on the fact both have large ears, but really it grounded in the comedian identity politics, where some ones race should be a determining factor of their whole outlook on life. Those that don't conform to that then don't represent the x community.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Lazy victim-blaming of cyclists is still lazy victim-blaming of cyclists even when it's in the cause of defending the leader of the Labour Party from embarrassment.
Cycling is currently the best way for white males to find out what it's like to live as a persecuted minority - damn terrifying.
No victims were blamed in the making of that post. I carefully prefaced it by pointing out that I know no details about that incident. Indeed, it is because I am a keen cyclist that I was adding my twopenneth to illustrate what goes on on the roads. There are certain circumstances where cyclists endanger themselves, and that possibility has to be kept in mind. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I wonder how it's possible to hit a cyclist whilst doing a u-turn unless you either veered dangerously and suddenly into a bike coming the other way, or the situation I described above happened. Both are possible, one of them feels likelier than the other. Have a think about it yourself.
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
Better to isolate the few who have the virus properly than everyone badly.
New Zealand has just announced they will use centralised quarantine if they have any flare ups, and the usual suspects are accusing them of fascism/communism.
Fuck it, it's two weeks of someone's life. I'm sure they'll live.
Why don’t they run a large scale trial ? Incentivise it with a bung to the local authority for a medium sized town where infection rates are fairly high.
Pick the best rapid antigen test we have, and test the whole population (say 200k people), and isolate anyone testing positive. With a 1-2% infection rate, and perhaps a similar false positive rate, that would give you 4-8000 people to isolate.
Retest those with PCR or equivalent, which for that number could be done in 1-2 days, enabling those who are false positives to rapidly return to normal life. Pay those isolating to cooperate. Give everyone £20 for taking the test if need be.
Repeat for the next couple of weeks. I bet it would work. At the very worst it would give you some great stats on the real world accuracy of the test.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Lazy victim-blaming of cyclists is still lazy victim-blaming of cyclists even when it's in the cause of defending the leader of the Labour Party from embarrassment.
Cycling is currently the best way for white males to find out what it's like to live as a persecuted minority - damn terrifying.
No victims were blamed in the making of that post. I carefully prefaced it by pointing out that I know no details about that incident. Indeed, it is because I am a keen cyclist that I was adding my twopenneth to illustrate what goes on on the roads. There are certain circumstances where cyclists endanger themselves, and that possibility has to be kept in mind. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I wonder how it's possible to hit a cyclist whilst doing a u-turn unless you either veered dangerously and suddenly into a bike coming the other way, or the situation I described above happened. Both are possible, one of them feels likelier than the other. Have a think about it yourself.
Oh, I thought of another, if the turn was one of those where you go into a junction and swing right back out again, in which case it must be the driver to blame.
Notable that 538 is projecting Trump will increase his share of the vote in California from 31.6% to 34.1%. They also forecast a slightly increased share for him in Oregon and Washington.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Lazy victim-blaming of cyclists is still lazy victim-blaming of cyclists even when it's in the cause of defending the leader of the Labour Party from embarrassment.
Cycling is currently the best way for white males to find out what it's like to live as a persecuted minority - damn terrifying.
No victims were blamed in the making of that post. I carefully prefaced it by pointing out that I know no details about that incident. Indeed, it is because I am a keen cyclist that I was adding my twopenneth to illustrate what goes on on the roads. There are certain circumstances where cyclists endanger themselves, and that possibility has to be kept in mind. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I wonder how it's possible to hit a cyclist whilst doing a u-turn unless you either veered dangerously and suddenly into a bike coming the other way, or the situation I described above happened. Both are possible, one of them feels likelier than the other. Have a think about it yourself.
You don't know what happened but you're still going to tell everyone that it was probably the cyclist's fault. The cyclist who was taken to hospital in an ambulance.
I don't know the details about this, but I've seen near-crashes with u-turning cars before. Where the car is mid-manoeuvre and a cyclist just nips in behind because they can't wait. As a cyclist, I always wait because I know as a driver, it's impossible to see everywhere when you're turning in the road. You have blind spots at funny angles to the road, and it's too easy to miss something. Plus, it's fucking rude to squeeze past when someone's turning.
Lazy victim-blaming of cyclists is still lazy victim-blaming of cyclists even when it's in the cause of defending the leader of the Labour Party from embarrassment.
Cycling is currently the best way for white males to find out what it's like to live as a persecuted minority - damn terrifying.
No victims were blamed in the making of that post. I carefully prefaced it by pointing out that I know no details about that incident. Indeed, it is because I am a keen cyclist that I was adding my twopenneth to illustrate what goes on on the roads. There are certain circumstances where cyclists endanger themselves, and that possibility has to be kept in mind. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I wonder how it's possible to hit a cyclist whilst doing a u-turn unless you either veered dangerously and suddenly into a bike coming the other way, or the situation I described above happened. Both are possible, one of them feels likelier than the other. Have a think about it yourself.
You don't know what happened but you're still going to tell everyone that it was probably the cyclist's fault. The cyclist who was taken to hospital in an ambulance.
That is straight up victim blaming.
Again, no. I started by distancing myself from talking about this event, and went on to talk generalities. Stop spoiling for a fight, it's really immature.
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
Better to isolate the few who have the virus properly than everyone badly.
New Zealand has just announced they will use centralised quarantine if they have any flare ups, and the usual suspects are accusing them of fascism/communism.
Fuck it, it's two weeks of someone's life. I'm sure they'll live.
...only if Countdown Supermarkets are allowed to sell non-essentials.
New Zealand don't want to fall into the trap of "doing a Drakeford".
Trumps new appeal to women in the suburbs . “ We’re getting your husbands back to work “ so you can stay at home and pop out babies whilst hubbie goes a hunting ! Is the new demographic he’s seeking the Stepford Wives !
Polling companies should not be judged on the final polls taken on the eve of November 3rd, because most votes will have been cast in the month prior to that.
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
Better to isolate the few who have the virus properly than everyone badly.
New Zealand has just announced they will use centralised quarantine if they have any flare ups, and the usual suspects are accusing them of fascism/communism.
Fuck it, it's two weeks of someone's life. I'm sure they'll live.
...only if Countdown Supermarkets are allowed to sell non-essentials.
New Zealand don't want to fall into the trap of "doing a Drakeford".
Argentina is an interesting one to look at re lockdowns - 7 months of strict regulations, now everyone’s so bored they’re ignoring them and the cases/deaths are through the roof.
Looks like Labour will have lot on their 'own plate' this Thursday at 11.00am when the ECHR is published
So much build up almost anything could be a damp squib, bizarrely.
If it is bad, then so long as they gag Corbyn from commenting on it then the news cycle will pass quicker than Boris would like, I imagine.
Starmer may well have to sack well known mps from Labour otherwise he will forever be embroiled with it
I expect it will be in the news for days but of course the US election will dominate
I came down this morning at 7.30 only to see Kay Burley had already arrived in the US and was doing her morning programme from there and no doubt until post the election.
With covid, brexit and Boris's woes Sky and Burley decide that we all need to be hooked up in the US in their utter obsession with US politics as we are mostly in lockdown concerned about health and jobs
Anyway the BBC did not fall for the allure of being out of touch and were very good to be honest
I didn't know Bernard Manning style humour was coming back into fashion....a couple of weeks ago, it was kill whiteys, was the side splitting punch line, now...
Presenter Tom Price chuckled as comedian Leila Navabi accused Mr Sunak of “not representing most brown people”.
She went on to joke: “Rishi Sunak represents a lot of things for us as a society, not least what Prince Charles would look like in brownface.”
Well, she was right about the 50p coin thing that is referenced being virtue signalling, but this is codswallop A BBC spokesman said: “In this instance, we believe that the comedian, who was a guest on the programme, was suggesting that Prince Charles and the Chancellor have a passing resemblance.
Personally I cannot see the resemblance even in passing, but each to their own. Seems more likely when someone is upset about 'X not representing group Y' well enough they simply have very weird expectations of how people should behave based on their ethnicity.
And of course Tories will overreact to comments from a comedian, but my word as a society we can be clumsy on race, and send some very mixed signals about it not mattering, or mattering more than anything.
I presume it supposed to play on the fact both have large ears, but really it grounded in the comedian identity politics, where some ones race should be a determining factor of their whole outlook on life. Those that don't conform to that then don't represent the x community.
I don’t disagree with the main thrust, but I feel this is a problem that is maybe impossible for ‘I know my rights’ western nations. As others have said before, our lockdown was puny c.f. to other countries. There also is a balance that must be struck of economy vs health. Unpalatable but true.
Better to isolate the few who have the virus properly than everyone badly.
New Zealand has just announced they will use centralised quarantine if they have any flare ups, and the usual suspects are accusing them of fascism/communism.
Fuck it, it's two weeks of someone's life. I'm sure they'll live.
NZ, I don't know.
My South Korean friend is wondering whether to return to S. Korea over Christmas.
Even with a test showing she is COVID-free, she has to quarantine at a hotel for 2 weeks at her expense. In particular, she can't quarantine at her home.
Whilst we may end up with such harsh measures, they are very significant impositions on people.
In fact, my friend is now wondering whether it is even worth her while going back to S. Korea over Christmas.
Notable that 538 is projecting Trump will increase his share of the vote in California from 31.6% to 34.1%. They also forecast a slightly increased share for him in Oregon and Washington.
The biggest swings to Biden are in these states: Kentucky, Oklahoma, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, West Virginia, South Dakota — all safe states for one of the candidates.
I posted this podcast yesterday but I'm just gonna spam it here one more time because it's so great. US political punter podcast Star Spangled Gamblers with the notorious Shadsy, and British betting writer Paul Krishnamurty.
The biggest swings to Biden are in these states: Kentucky, Oklahoma, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, West Virginia, South Dakota — all safe states for one of the candidates.
And the smallest swings in safe Dem states. I think this is another way of saying the Biden is gaining Republicans, not just turning out more Dems.
If the polls show he's gaining GOP votes, and the early voting shows he's turning out Dems, it's quite hard to see how he can lose.
Numbers from Georgia matching up the NYT polls to the voter file, lots of arguing in the thread over how to interpret them but the non-bonkers consensus seems to be that Biden looks like he could come up a bit short:
If you believe Nate Silver and the polls, then you definitely should be backing Biden at 5/6. It's a steal if the polls are right.
If...
It is a steal.
When can you think of a national election where the polls have been more than four points wrong in recent times?
2019 UK - basically right 2018 Midterms - basically right, maybe Dems very slightly underrated 2017 UK - Labour did three points better 2017 France - Macron outperformed by 1%, Le Pen underperformed by 1% 2016 - Brexit - Polls were four points out 2016 US - Polls were one point out 2012 US - Polls were three points out 2008 US - Polls were basically right
As the phrase goes "it's not a problem until it's a problem".
1. Post-the shooting of Jo Cox, the polls swung heavily to Remain. As we now know, that was a false indicator, suggesting people didn't want to be associated with Leave given the context of the murder. That should throw up a warning about polling and whether people give truthful answers when a particular option is seen as particularly controversial.
2. Remain in one of the polls had a lead of +10% and in a few others 7-8%. Not just mildly out but wildly out.
I'm sure if there is a polling error here, the polling companies will be rushing to include Rasmussen and Trafalgar in their average calculations to show that the polling industry got it right
You are misunderstanding what happened there, though. A demographic that didn’t usually vote turned out in large numbers, the polling models assuming they wouldn’t vote as usual. They even made a film about it - Cammo’s three million hidden voters.
In the US, insofar as this is relevant, a similar demographic turned out for Trump last time. It’s in the base.
Whereas the demographics that appear to be turning out in larger numbers than one might expect (noting the caveat that the virus makes modelling early voting this time less meaningful in terms of politics) are for Biden.
Does anyone know who was on the other side of my Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton lays?
I think I managed to sell some Clinton at 8.1; genuinely utter madness.
The Obama/Clinton layer could have been a trading bot unaware that most of the field had fallen at earlier fences. There is just a chance it was a sophisticated punter predicting what might happen if Biden had withdrawn in the several months between winning the nomination and having it confirmed. Sanders came second but it is likely the men in grey suits would have found someone else as a "compromise" candidate, say Hillary or Michelle Obama.
Is the outcome of Mike's bet determined by Biden winning next Tuesday's Presidential Election or on him being sworn in as President next year? I'm assuming it's the former, although the way OGH words the header:"I’VE FINALLY BET ON BIDEN AS NEXT PRESIDENT" sounds a tad ambiguous. Btw, a couple of bookies currently have him at 1.52 - do they know something we don't?Those odds simply look too generous.
Quite a lot of comment here about Wisconsin and Trump's surprise visit there ... I imagine the numbers suggest that if he wins that state then he wins the election!
Tuesday close - 71.0m votes cast = 51.6% of total 2016 vote
Monday close - 64.7m
Sunday close - 59.4m
So 6.3m reported on Tuesday, up from 5.3m on Monday.
No sign yet of any slowing up - which might have been expected given how many had already voted - and presumably people will now be more reluctant to risk the post so near Election day.
I still don't understand why lockdown is still in the frame. The source of continued infection is people who have the virus interacting with people who don't have it at its most basic level. That's the problem that needs solving and using a lockdown to keep everyone indoors regardless of whether they have the virus or not is a huge failure on basically every level given what we now know about the virus that we didn't in March.
The key is to: 1. Find people with the virus 2. Isolate them properly 3. Find who they have been in contact with 4. Test them rapidly and isolate them if they also have the virus 5. Rinse, repeat until there's no virus left
We're sort of finding people with the virus because people develop symptoms and ask for tests, we're not isolating them properly, we're not finding people they've been in contact with, those that we do find are being asked unnecessarily to isolate for 14 days instead of being given rapid tests and we're not doing it fast enough.
So on actually having a solution to the problem we're at 0.5/5, increasing testing capacity is no longer an effective tool for suppression, it takes us from 0.5/5 to maybe 0.7/5, we need to address all of the other steps to break the chain. Lockdown does it to some degree because it makes 3-5 irrelevant by partially solving 2, but it comes with huge economic and social consequences.
Our government has failed us, the machinery of the state has failed us, the opposition has failed us, the academics have failed us. We're fucked because of incompetence, corruption and plain stupidity by all levels of the state. It's genuinely depressing to think that we're going to go into lockdown because they haven't got a fucking clue and no one who has the ability to question the government has a fucking clue either and are more interested in stupid political process stories.
I agree with you, except I think you're too harsh on the opposition. Starmer has been banging on about taking pretty much exactly the steps you suggest at every PMQs for the last three months, to no avail. His idea of a circuit breaker now is as a last resort precisely because the government/Dido/Serco failed to get it right, leading to the virus getting out of control over the last month.
As well as @MaxPB's five-point plan, there is more that can be done on the behavioural side, for instance posters about masks at shop entrances, and adverts about how to wear masks properly -- not from anally-retentive doctors about not touching it in case you have to perform a heart transplant in the baked goods aisle but at the level of cover your nose and don't pull the mask down to talk.
Then there is the question of how and where the virus spreads. Earlier research (which might have been superseded) suggested the danger was aerosols. This could be used for a better targeted lockdown allowing outdoor activities including sport, and discouraging singing, shouting and coughing.
The government also needs to start talking about the whole string of festivals coming up in the next two months.
Certainly, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina all look like potential problems for Biden, based on this very informative and interesting spreadsheet. The same might also apply to a couple of other swing states which Biden is expected to win .
Rapid antigen tests showing under 1% false positives, and good sensitivity.
Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219600v1 ... Results: Among the 289 participants, 39 (13.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 90.6% (CI 75.8-96.8). The negative percent agreement was 99.2% (CI 97.2-99.8). The Ag-RDT with AN sampling showed a sensitivity of 74.4% (29/39 PCR positives detected; CI 58.9-85.4) and specificity of 99.2% (CI 97.1-99.8) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP sampling was 79.5% (31/39 PCR positives detected; CI 64.5-89.2) and specificity was 99.6% (CI 97.8-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log10 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN sampling was 96% and 100% with NP sampling. Conclusion: Supervised self-sampling from the anterior nose is a reliable alternative to professional nasopharyngeal sampling using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Considering the ease-of-use of Ag-RDTs, self-sampling and potentially patient self-testing at home may be a future use case....
Is the outcome of Mike's bet determined by Biden winning next Tuesday's Presidential Election or on him being sworn in as President next year? I'm assuming it's the former, although the way OGH words the header:"I’VE FINALLY BET ON BIDEN AS NEXT PRESIDENT" sounds a tad ambiguous. Btw, a couple of bookies currently have him at 1.52 - do they know something we don't?Those odds simply look too generous.
I'm sure you're right and that Mike's bet is with Betfair. That being the case, their rules state that the outcome is based on next Tuesday's election.
Is the outcome of Mike's bet determined by Biden winning next Tuesday's Presidential Election or on him being sworn in as President next year? I'm assuming it's the former, although the way OGH words the header:"I’VE FINALLY BET ON BIDEN AS NEXT PRESIDENT" sounds a tad ambiguous. Btw, a couple of bookies currently have him at 1.52 - do they know something we don't?Those odds simply look too generous.
I assumed it was Betfair exchange ?
On the matter of what precisely is being bet on, you need to check the rules of each bookmaker or exchange market. If (as on Betfair) it is on the candidate getting most ECV delegates, then it is quite possible the winner of the next president markets will not be the next president. So bets might be paid out on Biden or Trump but the next president could easily be Mike Pence or Kamala Harris. If Biden wins the election, Trump might resign in favour of Pence in return for a pardon, or Biden might become ill and Kamala Harris be inaugurated.
As for the price, Betfair has 1.51 Biden, 2.92 Trump, which is miles off the polls, projections and predictions. Biden's price will almost certainly fall as we approach the election, now just six days away, assuming everything else stays the same and there is no October surprise.
If you look at 538, Biden is forecast to win five states - IA, GA, NC, FL and AZ - all by 2.5% or less.
Let's assume a polling error of 2.5% or a bit more - then potentially he loses all those states. OK, he might still win the odd one on random variation but it's entirely possible he loses the lot.
If the above happens, he has to win every other state he is forecast to win on 538. Now the tightest is PA - forecast to win by 5.3%. There are then four more states all forecast to win by around 7% to 8% - WI, NV, MI, MN.
The point is it only needs him to lose PA or one of these states (*) - so it's only really one shock result on top of the five which he could easily lose to an unexceptional moderate polling error.
It's hard to put odds on it but I just don't feel it's as clear cut as many people are making out.
(*) - I think he can actually lose just NV and still be OK as it's small enough that he still gets to 270 without it.
If you look at 538, Biden is forecast to win five states - IA, GA, NC, FL and AZ - all by 2.5% or less.
Let's assume a polling error of 2.5% or a bit more - then potentially he loses all those states. OK, he might still win the odd one on random variation but it's entirely possible he loses the lot.
If the above happens, he has to win every other state he is forecast to win on 538. Now the tightest is PA - forecast to win by 5.3%. There are then four more states all forecast to win by around 7% to 8% - WI, NV, MI, MN.
The point is it only needs him to lose PA or one of these states (*) - so it's only really one shock result on top of the five which he could easily lose to an unexceptional moderate polling error.
It's hard to put odds on it but I just don't feel it's as clear cut as many people are making out.
(*) - I think he can actually lose just NV and still be OK as it's small enough that he still gets to 270 without it.
Maybe, but if there is polling error it is unlikely to be uniform. There is a good article on 538 explaining this. The reason why Biden should be strong favourite (notwithstanding the polls) is that he has several different paths to victory. Certain states can be linked in terms of demographics and other characteristics meaning that polling error in one is likely to be replicated by polling error in others. But on the other hand where states are different, the same polling error will not be replicated, indeed it may even be compensated by polling error in the other direction.
Trump on the other hand has only a very narrow path to victory. He needs everything to line up in his favour and avoid accidents happening in his supposedly safer states.
Are you reposting old polls? And the Rishi attack video was posted a day or two back as well.
No, they were all published in the last day or so and I had not seen the Rishi ad before, however if you are so desperate for fresh polls you can damn well post them yourself!!
Comments
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1321233661765693440
In fact, the more I think about this, the more I wonder how it's possible to hit a cyclist whilst doing a u-turn unless you either veered dangerously and suddenly into a bike coming the other way, or the situation I described above happened. Both are possible, one of them feels likelier than the other. Have a think about it yourself.
Incentivise it with a bung to the local authority for a medium sized town where infection rates are fairly high.
Pick the best rapid antigen test we have, and test the whole population (say 200k people), and isolate anyone testing positive. With a 1-2% infection rate, and perhaps a similar false positive rate, that would give you 4-8000 people to isolate.
Retest those with PCR or equivalent, which for that number could be done in 1-2 days, enabling those who are false positives to rapidly return to normal life. Pay those isolating to cooperate. Give everyone £20 for taking the test if need be.
Repeat for the next couple of weeks.
I bet it would work. At the very worst it would give you some great stats on the real world accuracy of the test.
They make the site borderline unusable at times.
Anything interesting on the previous thread? Polls or early voting data?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
That is straight up victim blaming.
Stop spoiling for a fight, it's really immature.
New Zealand don't want to fall into the trap of "doing a Drakeford".
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/brett-kavanaugh-voter-suppression-wisconsin-mistakes.html
What is this hack doing on the bench ?
Again, it may sound like he's just ad-libbing but what he is saying is informed by polling of undecideds.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1321230803083382784
My South Korean friend is wondering whether to return to S. Korea over Christmas.
Even with a test showing she is COVID-free, she has to quarantine at a hotel for 2 weeks at her expense. In particular, she can't quarantine at her home.
Whilst we may end up with such harsh measures, they are very significant impositions on people.
In fact, my friend is now wondering whether it is even worth her while going back to S. Korea over Christmas.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1321194883256930306?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1321241518422675457?s=20
https://twitter.com/fox29philly/status/1321255275471474689?s=21
‘Trump needs to be denied a second term’, says John Bolton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlmbnP0sJlY
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DMLMGjv6z3fgJ41auwoomcGzg_pabwSQjIsfpI6wnqc/edit#gid=0
https://starspangledgamblers.com/2020/10/26/the-top-sharks-in-the-uk-weigh-in-on-the-us-election/
If the polls show he's gaining GOP votes, and the early voting shows he's turning out Dems, it's quite hard to see how he can lose.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1321219558674436098
I think I managed to sell some Clinton at 8.1; genuinely utter madness.
In the US, insofar as this is relevant, a similar demographic turned out for Trump last time. It’s in the base.
Whereas the demographics that appear to be turning out in larger numbers than one might expect (noting the caveat that the virus makes modelling early voting this time less meaningful in terms of politics) are for Biden.
Btw, a couple of bookies currently have him at 1.52 - do they know something we don't?Those odds simply look too generous.
Monday close - 64.7m
Sunday close - 59.4m
So 6.3m reported on Tuesday, up from 5.3m on Monday.
No sign yet of any slowing up - which might have been expected given how many had already voted - and presumably people will now be more reluctant to risk the post so near Election day.
Then there is the question of how and where the virus spreads. Earlier research (which might have been superseded) suggested the danger was aerosols. This could be used for a better targeted lockdown allowing outdoor activities including sport, and discouraging singing, shouting and coughing.
The government also needs to start talking about the whole string of festivals coming up in the next two months.
Head-to-head comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid test with self-collected anterior nasal swab versus professional-collected nasopharyngeal swab
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.26.20219600v1
... Results: Among the 289 participants, 39 (13.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. The positive percent agreement of the two different sampling techniques for the Ag-RDT was 90.6% (CI 75.8-96.8). The negative percent agreement was 99.2% (CI 97.2-99.8). The Ag-RDT with AN sampling showed a sensitivity of 74.4% (29/39 PCR positives detected; CI 58.9-85.4) and specificity of 99.2% (CI 97.1-99.8) compared to RT-PCR. The sensitivity with NP sampling was 79.5% (31/39 PCR positives detected; CI 64.5-89.2) and specificity was 99.6% (CI 97.8-100). In patients with high viral load (>7.0 log10 RNA SARS-CoV2/swab), the sensitivity of the Ag-RDT with AN sampling was 96% and 100% with NP sampling. Conclusion: Supervised self-sampling from the anterior nose is a reliable alternative to professional nasopharyngeal sampling using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Considering the ease-of-use of Ag-RDTs, self-sampling and potentially patient self-testing at home may be a future use case....
As for the price, Betfair has 1.51 Biden, 2.92 Trump, which is miles off the polls, projections and predictions. Biden's price will almost certainly fall as we approach the election, now just six days away, assuming everything else stays the same and there is no October surprise.
If you look at 538, Biden is forecast to win five states - IA, GA, NC, FL and AZ - all by 2.5% or less.
Let's assume a polling error of 2.5% or a bit more - then potentially he loses all those states. OK, he might still win the odd one on random variation but it's entirely possible he loses the lot.
If the above happens, he has to win every other state he is forecast to win on 538. Now the tightest is PA - forecast to win by 5.3%. There are then four more states all forecast to win by around 7% to 8% - WI, NV, MI, MN.
The point is it only needs him to lose PA or one of these states (*) - so it's only really one shock result on top of the five which he could easily lose to an unexceptional moderate polling error.
It's hard to put odds on it but I just don't feel it's as clear cut as many people are making out.
(*) - I think he can actually lose just NV and still be OK as it's small enough that he still gets to 270 without it.
Trump on the other hand has only a very narrow path to victory. He needs everything to line up in his favour and avoid accidents happening in his supposedly safer states.