Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
I didn't say I thought it was dodgy, I said I think Pelosi would see it as risky. It's a big, norm-changing step to take. The first new state for decades and admitted partially for partisan advantage (or reduction of disadvantage, if you prefer). Ronald Reagan may well have given speeches in favour, but how many similarly dramatic steps has Pelosi advocated recently?
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
There was partisan (or sectional, which is more or less same thing) to admission of EVERY new state starting with Vermont. So that argument is does NOT hold as much water as a colander, methinks.
As for Pelosi, why would she resist what she and virtually every Democrat in Congress wants - statehood for PR if Puerto Ricans really wants it.
AND achieving statehood for Puerto Rico would make achieving statehood for District of Columbia MUCH easier. Though still heavy lifting due to constitutional issue, which is totally absent in case of PR.
Let's turn this around: If there is no reason why Pelosi wouldn't support this then why does a Google search for 'Pelosi Puerto Rico Statehood' not find a bunch of articles of her supporting it on the record? Instead it finds a bunch of articles where other people argue she should back it and they want to convince her.
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
I didn't say I thought it was dodgy, I said I think Pelosi would see it as risky. It's a big, norm-changing step to take. The first new state for decades and admitted partially for partisan advantage (or reduction of disadvantage, if you prefer). Ronald Reagan may well have given speeches in favour, but how many similarly dramatic steps has Pelosi advocated recently?
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
There was partisan (or sectional, which is more or less same thing) to admission of EVERY new state starting with Vermont. So that argument is does NOT hold as much water as a colander, methinks.
As for Pelosi, why would she resist what she and virtually every Democrat in Congress wants - statehood for PR if Puerto Ricans really wants it.
AND achieving statehood for Puerto Rico would make achieving statehood for District of Columbia MUCH easier. Though still heavy lifting due to constitutional issue, which is totally absent in case of PR.
Statehood for Puerto Rico and (much less likely short-term) District of Columbia could be the crowning achievement of Nancy Pelosi's career.
In same way that confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett and other conservative federal judges is likely to be the crowning achievement for Mitch McConnell, regardless of whether he wins re-election next Tuesday or not (and I think he will).
@HYUFD the polls are being weighted to account for those white voters without degrees now. So why do you think the polls will be wrong again?
Rasmussen were right in 2016, their final national poll was Clinton +2%, this week they have had a Trump 1% lead or Biden +2%.
Trafalgar were right in Michigan and Pennsylvania and still have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tied.
ABC today also had Trump ahead both in the suburbs 49% to 46% for Biden as well as with non college educated whites 56% to 38% for Biden in Michigan and if they turn out in big enough numbers he could again win the pivotal swing state
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
I didn't say I thought it was dodgy, I said I think Pelosi would see it as risky. It's a big, norm-changing step to take. The first new state for decades and admitted partially for partisan advantage (or reduction of disadvantage, if you prefer). Ronald Reagan may well have given speeches in favour, but how many similarly dramatic steps has Pelosi advocated recently?
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
There was partisan (or sectional, which is more or less same thing) to admission of EVERY new state starting with Vermont. So that argument is does NOT hold as much water as a colander, methinks.
As for Pelosi, why would she resist what she and virtually every Democrat in Congress wants - statehood for PR if Puerto Ricans really wants it.
AND achieving statehood for Puerto Rico would make achieving statehood for District of Columbia MUCH easier. Though still heavy lifting due to constitutional issue, which is totally absent in case of PR.
Let's turn this around: If there is no reason why Pelosi wouldn't support this then why does a Google search for 'Pelosi Puerto Rico Statehood' not find a bunch of articles of her supporting it on the record? Instead it finds a bunch of articles where other people argue she should back it and they want to convince her.
Because PR haven't voted for it yet.
The usual line from the top brass of the parties is that it is for PR to decide and they haven't had a clear unambiguous vote in favour of it yet - in which case there's no reason for the likes of Pelosi to jump into the politics which would only make it a more party political issue.
But PR are having a referendum on this issue on Tuesday and for the first time ever it is a clear and unambiguous binary choice. If they vote No then that's the end of the matter - but if they vote Yes then what possible reason is there for Congress to reject PR's request for Statehood?
BBC News is pretty bloody awful these days. Laura K simply parrots the parties’ stock lines, and there is very little insight or analysis generally. I gave up on it a while ago.
What do you watch when you want to see a news programme? I don't think it's wonderful, but it makes a reasonable shot at impartiality between the parties, whatever its underlying liberal/centrist cultural flavour. For example, I expect they will cover the EHRC report tomorrow in detail, and lefties like me will grumble, but without any real conviction that they're not trying to do a decent job.. A glance at the US media shows the horrors of predominantly partisan news coverage - people mostly watch the channel that tells them what they want to hear.
I agree with Nick!
I’m a big fan of the BBC. Yes, it’s not perfect, is a bit left of centre, liberal in outlook and very PC. But, as Nick says, it tries to present the news impartially and, in my view, mostly succeeds. It understands that we are a diverse society and seeks to represent that diversity in its news reports.
2 Senators, 6 Electoral college, 4 congressional districts for Puerto Rico once they're in ?
Something like that. And electoral history of Puerto Rico suggests they would NOT be the vest pocket of any one party, at least not totally OR reliably.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
I didn't say I thought it was dodgy, I said I think Pelosi would see it as risky. It's a big, norm-changing step to take. The first new state for decades and admitted partially for partisan advantage (or reduction of disadvantage, if you prefer). Ronald Reagan may well have given speeches in favour, but how many similarly dramatic steps has Pelosi advocated recently?
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
There was partisan (or sectional, which is more or less same thing) to admission of EVERY new state starting with Vermont. So that argument is does NOT hold as much water as a colander, methinks.
As for Pelosi, why would she resist what she and virtually every Democrat in Congress wants - statehood for PR if Puerto Ricans really wants it.
AND achieving statehood for Puerto Rico would make achieving statehood for District of Columbia MUCH easier. Though still heavy lifting due to constitutional issue, which is totally absent in case of PR.
Let's turn this around: If there is no reason why Pelosi wouldn't support this then why does a Google search for 'Pelosi Puerto Rico Statehood' not find a bunch of articles of her supporting it on the record? Instead it finds a bunch of articles where other people argue she should back it and they want to convince her.
Because PR haven't voted for it yet.
The usual line from the top brass of the parties is that it is for PR to decide and they haven't had a clear unambiguous vote in favour of it yet - in which case there's no reason for the likes of Pelosi to jump into the politics which would only make it a more party political issue.
But PR are having a referendum on this issue on Tuesday and for the first time ever it is a clear and unambiguous binary choice. If they vote No then that's the end of the matter - but if they vote Yes then what possible reason is there for Congress to reject PR's request for Statehood?
No reason at all except to play politics - and at that point AND under a Biden presidency, the politics would be TOTALLY favorable for Democrats including Pelosi on this.
In fact, even BETTER for Pelosi, in the sense that PR statehood would be some red meat (pun intended) she could throw (with about zero downside) to AOC (remember her?) and progressive in Congress AND across the US. from San Juan to Sitka.
Incidentally Puerto Rico having the right to self-determination is in the Democrats 2020 platform (manifesto). Knowing that PR are having a referendum.
The PR referendum uses the exact same language as was used in both Hawaii and Alaska's referendum too.
So if the Democrats are elected on a platform recognising PR's right to self-determination - and if PR votes to become a State "immediately" - then why would the Democrats not honour their platform and PR's voters wishes?
If Puerto Rico votes for Statehood then it won't be just the Democrats voting in favour of it in Congress anyway. Republican Senator Marco Rubio is a leading advocate of PR Statehood on the Republican side too.
Barring a terrible night for the Democrats on Tuesday - or a No vote in PR's referendum - PR statehood must be an almost locked on certainty.
Just kind of a shame that 50 was a nice round number for States and 100 was a nice round number for the Senate. Nevermind.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Has Andrew Neil apologised for relentlessly trying to discredit Whitty and Vallance?
twitter.com/afneil/status/1312067363366490112
I guess he could argue recorded cases, not estimated cases....I mean the initial "not a prediction" graph used recorded cases as their basis to start the exponential uplift.
BBC News is pretty bloody awful these days. Laura K simply parrots the parties’ stock lines, and there is very little insight or analysis generally. I gave up on it a while ago.
What do you watch when you want to see a news programme? I don't think it's wonderful, but it makes a reasonable shot at impartiality between the parties, whatever its underlying liberal/centrist cultural flavour. For example, I expect they will cover the EHRC report tomorrow in detail, and lefties like me will grumble, but without any real conviction that they're not trying to do a decent job.. A glance at the US media shows the horrors of predominantly partisan news coverage - people mostly watch the channel that tells them what they want to hear.
I agree with Nick!
I’m a big fan of the BBC. Yes, it’s not perfect, is a bit left of centre, liberal in outlook and very PC. But, as Nick says, it tries to present the news impartially and, in my view, mostly succeeds. It understands that we are a diverse society and seeks to represent that diversity in its news reports.
Fine. Good for BBC News. I'm just not fucking paying for it by a tax, to watch Guardian TV. Sorry.
As of 5pm Pacific, total WA State cumulative ballot returns = 2,759,806 (56.7% of 4.9m active registered voters)
>note this compares with 2016 cumulative EDay -6 ballot returns = 1,379,879 (32.3% of 4.3m active reg)
>further note that in 2016 general final turnout = 3,363,440 (76.1% of active reg)
> IF final statewide turnout reaches 85% this year, then ballots returned by tonight are exactly 2/3 (66.7%) of the projected final ballots cast; f turnout is lower, then percent already voted in higher.
As to partisanship, returns so far are definitely sweeter for Democrats than Republicans, based on modeling (no party registration in Evergreen State).
Strong evidence for this is the current return rates (as % of active reg) from most Democratic part of WA
> King County = 58.5% or +1.8% ahead of statewide
Don't have updated # for Seattle (part of KC) but city returns have been running ahead of county - reverse of usual pattern.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Which would mean that only 20% of new cases are being detected.
As there is no shortage of testing capacity it would also mean that there are a far more asymptomatic cases than symptomatic.
It would also mean that new cases in European countries were at absolutely incredible levels given that testing is lower in those places.
And finally if R is above 2 in various places it would mean that masks etc having almost no use.
Or perhaps the study is a bit bollox ?
That we're only catching a fraction of the cases is matched by the ONS survey and all other research, it shouldn't be a shock. Though not normally 20% I think?
That there is asymptomatic (and/or mild symptomatic) cases is well known true.
Yes new cases in Europe are much higher than reported figures. The Positivity rate in France has gone through the roof.
Masks aren't worn everywhere but without masks the R was 3 originally.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
On topic, there are two Dakotas, it seems like a lost opportunity only to have one Puerto Rico.
Reason the Dakota Territory was cruelly partitioned (though with marked absence of tears on either side of the line) was two-fold:
> instead of one large state, created two average-size (for Great Plains) states.
> other (and more important) consideration, was that there were SIX territories over-rip for statehood in late 1880s; three were though likely to vote Democratic (Idaho, Montana & Wyoming) while just two were considered good prospects for Republicans (Dakota & Washington). SO to get them all through, was decided to even things up by dividing DT into two separate states.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
No that was the number testing positive, but we don't catch everyone who is positive (if we did the pandemic would end).
The ONS survey shows the true state of the pandemic and that was past 50k then wasn't it?
The Vallance-Whitty graph was based on the number testing positive - which is why it started at 3,105 on 15/09/20.
So Andrew Neil was correct.
Yes but the graph was also based on a starting positivity rate of 0.6% of cases and the ONS survey at the time showing we were catching most of the cases.
Since then the positivity rate has gone from 0.6% to nearly 10% and the ONS shows we aren't catching as high a percentage of cases. So comparing 18k to the 3k is meaningless gibberish that Andrew Neil would rightly call out as preposterous nonsense if someone tried to pull a stunt like that with him.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
No that was the number testing positive, but we don't catch everyone who is positive (if we did the pandemic would end).
The ONS survey shows the true state of the pandemic and that was past 50k then wasn't it?
The Vallance-Whitty graph was based on the number testing positive - which is why it started at 3,105 on 15/09/20.
So Andrew Neil was correct.
Yes but the graph was also based on a starting positivity rate of 0.6% of cases and the ONS survey at the time showing we were catching most of the cases.
Since then the positivity rate has gone from 0.6% to nearly 10% and the ONS shows we aren't catching as high a percentage of cases. So comparing 18k to the 3k is meaningless gibberish that Andrew Neil would rightly call out as preposterous nonsense if someone tried to pull a stunt like that with him.
Meh, his tweet was saying that the prediction of 50,000 recorded cases was not going to happen, and he was correct. Nothing about what the starting positivity rate was or anything.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Which would mean that only 20% of new cases are being detected.
As there is no shortage of testing capacity it would also mean that there are a far more asymptomatic cases than symptomatic.
It would also mean that new cases in European countries were at absolutely incredible levels given that testing is lower in those places.
And finally if R is above 2 in various places it would mean that masks etc having almost no use.
Or perhaps the study is a bit bollox ?
That we're only catching a fraction of the cases is matched by the ONS survey and all other research, it shouldn't be a shock. Though not normally 20% I think?
That there is asymptomatic (and/or mild symptomatic) cases is well known true.
Yes new cases in Europe are much higher than reported figures. The Positivity rate in France has gone through the roof.
Masks aren't worn everywhere but without masks the R was 3 originally.
I do wonder a bit about this study. In March, it is now thought that at peak, it was 100k a day catching it. If it is true now, we are only at about 1/3 the level in terms of admissions. Now it maybe that the wave is still out at sea and by next week it will hit land, but the gradient of the graphs in terms of admissions is much shallower than March.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Which would mean that only 20% of new cases are being detected.
As there is no shortage of testing capacity it would also mean that there are a far more asymptomatic cases than symptomatic.
It would also mean that new cases in European countries were at absolutely incredible levels given that testing is lower in those places.
And finally if R is above 2 in various places it would mean that masks etc having almost no use.
Or perhaps the study is a bit bollox ?
That we're only catching a fraction of the cases is matched by the ONS survey and all other research, it shouldn't be a shock. Though not normally 20% I think?
That there is asymptomatic (and/or mild symptomatic) cases is well known true.
Yes new cases in Europe are much higher than reported figures. The Positivity rate in France has gone through the roof.
Masks aren't worn everywhere but without masks the R was 3 originally.
Masks are widely worn, people socially distance and self isolate, there are restrictions on high risk events and places.
So if R is anywhere near 3 then either those things are worthless, the virus has suddenly become more virulent or the study is wrong.
And if anything like 80% of cases are asymptomatic then we will rapidly get herd immunity.
Finally if they think 100k are being infected every day then the infection rate in March must have been many times that.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
No that was the number testing positive, but we don't catch everyone who is positive (if we did the pandemic would end).
The ONS survey shows the true state of the pandemic and that was past 50k then wasn't it?
The Vallance-Whitty graph was based on the number testing positive - which is why it started at 3,105 on 15/09/20.
So Andrew Neil was correct.
Yes but the graph was also based on a starting positivity rate of 0.6% of cases and the ONS survey at the time showing we were catching most of the cases.
Since then the positivity rate has gone from 0.6% to nearly 10% and the ONS shows we aren't catching as high a percentage of cases. So comparing 18k to the 3k is meaningless gibberish that Andrew Neil would rightly call out as preposterous nonsense if someone tried to pull a stunt like that with him.
The Witty / Valance not a prediction graph was poor science, great PR. Exponential growth however catches everybody out when they see a number and say it can't be significantly bigger in a few days.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
No that was the number testing positive, but we don't catch everyone who is positive (if we did the pandemic would end).
The ONS survey shows the true state of the pandemic and that was past 50k then wasn't it?
The Vallance-Whitty graph was based on the number testing positive - which is why it started at 3,105 on 15/09/20.
So Andrew Neil was correct.
Yes but the graph was also based on a starting positivity rate of 0.6% of cases and the ONS survey at the time showing we were catching most of the cases.
Since then the positivity rate has gone from 0.6% to nearly 10% and the ONS shows we aren't catching as high a percentage of cases. So comparing 18k to the 3k is meaningless gibberish that Andrew Neil would rightly call out as preposterous nonsense if someone tried to pull a stunt like that with him.
Its comparing like with like ie cases by date recorded.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Which would mean that only 20% of new cases are being detected.
As there is no shortage of testing capacity it would also mean that there are a far more asymptomatic cases than symptomatic.
It would also mean that new cases in European countries were at absolutely incredible levels given that testing is lower in those places.
And finally if R is above 2 in various places it would mean that masks etc having almost no use.
Or perhaps the study is a bit bollox ?
That we're only catching a fraction of the cases is matched by the ONS survey and all other research, it shouldn't be a shock. Though not normally 20% I think?
That there is asymptomatic (and/or mild symptomatic) cases is well known true.
Yes new cases in Europe are much higher than reported figures. The Positivity rate in France has gone through the roof.
Masks aren't worn everywhere but without masks the R was 3 originally.
Masks are widely worn, people socially distance and self isolate, there are restrictions on high risk events and places.
So if R is anywhere near 3 then either those things are worthless, the virus has suddenly become more virulent or the study is wrong.
And if anything like 80% of cases are asymptomatic then we will rapidly get herd immunity.
Finally if they think 100k are being infected every day then the infection rate in March must have been many times that.
Which seems extremely doubtful.
It can't have been many times more than 100k, because if it had been, we would have much higher antibody positive testing levels since then and also we now have a rough idea about IFR, and the deaths would have been significantly higher.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Which would mean that only 20% of new cases are being detected.
As there is no shortage of testing capacity it would also mean that there are a far more asymptomatic cases than symptomatic.
It would also mean that new cases in European countries were at absolutely incredible levels given that testing is lower in those places.
And finally if R is above 2 in various places it would mean that masks etc having almost no use.
Or perhaps the study is a bit bollox ?
That we're only catching a fraction of the cases is matched by the ONS survey and all other research, it shouldn't be a shock. Though not normally 20% I think?
That there is asymptomatic (and/or mild symptomatic) cases is well known true.
Yes new cases in Europe are much higher than reported figures. The Positivity rate in France has gone through the roof.
Masks aren't worn everywhere but without masks the R was 3 originally.
Masks are widely worn, people socially distance and self isolate, there are restrictions on high risk events and places.
So if R is anywhere near 3 then either those things are worthless, the virus has suddenly become more virulent or the study is wrong.
And if anything like 80% of cases are asymptomatic then we will rapidly get herd immunity.
Finally if they think 100k are being infected every day then the infection rate in March must have been many times that.
Which seems extremely doubtful.
It can't have been many times more than 100k, because if it had been, we would have much higher antibody positive testing levels since then and also we now have a rough idea about IFR, and the deaths would have been significantly higher.
Indeed.
For this study to be correct it would mean that the virus has become easier to become infected with but for the asymptomatic rate to increase to 80%.
If true then herd immunity is going to be achieved and we might as well give up on restrictions.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
For the record that article is wrong - it should say hours not minutes.
The average time across all ages (per 2019 BBC Annual Report) was 7 hours 36 minutes - see link to 2019 BBC Annual Report - graph at bottom of Page 57.
Re: Puerto Rico allow me to make more than honorable mention of one of greatest sons, and to me the greatest baseball player of all time, on and off the field - the late, great Roberto Clemente.
Who was FIERCELY proud of his heritage - who insisted that all his children be born on the island.
Don't know how he'd vote if he were alive today. Reckon he'd be conflicted - like many others, indeed one reason why PR has defaulted to Commonwealth status.
Because you see, while the upcoming referendum is yes or no on statehood question, every since Spain ran down her flag over El Morro in 1898 there have been THREE possible options beyond subject colony: > statehood > independence > in-between, which is commonwealth = status quo since 1952
Historically sentiment for independence has been strong, but actual political or voting as opposed to emotional support has been weak. For one thing, conditions in Cuba, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Haiti & rest of Caribbean aside from the Cayman Islands do NOT make prospect of independence look overly appealing.
As a result, independistas are among Puerto Rico's greatest martyrs - such as the PR nationalists who tried to assassinate Harry Truman and shot up the US House of Representative chamber. But NOT it's great policos.
THAT field has been left to advocates of statehood, traditionally and currently aligned with US Republicans; and commonwealth supporters aligned with - you guessed it! - US Democrats.
Which is why the 2020 Democratic National Platform - and Speaker Pelosi - are careful NOT to advocate "statehood" but rather "self-determination". So neutral on the issue in question - leaving that up to Puerto Ricans to decide.
And IF they decide for statehood, and Biden is President, then Democrats will make it so, with plenty of voting support from Marco Rubio & other GOPers.
Pretty close to my estimate that his odds now are down to snake eyes (1/36), from having previously said it was the equivalent of rolling 11+ (1/12).
This is pretty damning from the latest CNN poll:
"The poll finds that among those who have already voted (64% Biden to 34% Trump) or who plan to vote early but had not yet done so at the time they were interviewed (63% Biden to 33% Trump), Biden holds nearly two-thirds support. Trump leads 59% to 36%, though, among those who say they plan to vote on Election Day."
Apply that to the Wisconsin figures and Trump gets nowhere near;
3,583,804 active registered voters on October 1, 2020. Ballots Requested: 1,426,224 Ballots returned 1,132,393 (78.4%) In-person votes 413,183
So, about 50% of all RV have voted. Say only another 161,000 vote by E-day, bringing the total to 2 million early voters. And say total turnout reaches 75%, or 2.7 million, there are only 700,000 voters on E-day for Trump to make up the difference.
2 million = 1,280,000 to 680,000 Biden/Trump. Trump has to win 650,000 to 50,000 on the day.
Apply that to the Wisconsin figures and Trump gets nowhere near;
3,583,804 active registered voters on October 1, 2020. Ballots Requested: 1,426,224 Ballots returned 1,132,393 (78.4%) In-person votes 413,183
So,
1,545,576 have voted already Say only another 154,426 vote by E-day, This brings the total to 1.7 million early voters. And say total turnout reaches 75%, or 2.7 million, there are only 1,000,000 voters on E-day for Trump to make up the difference.
1.7 million = 1,088,000 to 578,000 Biden/Trump - a Biden lead of 510,000 Trump has to win 755,000 to 245,000 on the day, i.e. 75.5% of the vote on the day
Even if you say WI is R+6 compared to the national average (i.e. 58/40, not 64/34), the numbers are not good for Trump:
1.7 million = 986,000 to 680,000 Biden/Trump - a Biden lead of 306,000 Trump has to win 653,000 to 347,000 on the day, i.e. 65.3% of the vote on the day. A 59/36 split on the day leaves Trump 76,000 short.
People stressing about Christmas, forget that shit....
Lockdown rules need to be "sustained until the end of March 2021, and some restrictions would be in place until April or longer.
The doomsday document also claimed:
Deaths would peak at around 800 a day in “late February 2021” 25,000 could be in hospital at the worst of the peak 5,000 may be in intensive care in England alone by March A study commissioned by Sir Patrick Vallance was even more pessimistic – predicting 120,000 excess deaths over the winter. There could be 500 daily deaths for "at least" three months, with a shocking peak of 800 a day by "late February 2021".
People stressing about Christmas, forget that shit....
Lockdown rules need to be "sustained until the end of March 2021, and some restrictions would be in place until April or longer.
The doomsday document also claimed:
Deaths would peak at around 800 a day in “late February 2021” 25,000 could be in hospital at the worst of the peak 5,000 may be in intensive care in England alone by March A study commissioned by Sir Patrick Vallance was even more pessimistic – predicting 120,000 excess deaths over the winter. There could be 500 daily deaths for "at least" three months, with a shocking peak of 800 a day by "late February 2021".
Doesn't bother me personally — I've still got a huge stack of books to read, including War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged. 😊 But continue to be concerned that lockdown may ultimately cause more damage than the virus. Just watched Lord Sumption's latest lecture on the subject.
People stressing about Christmas, forget that shit....
Lockdown rules need to be "sustained until the end of March 2021, and some restrictions would be in place until April or longer.
The doomsday document also claimed:
Deaths would peak at around 800 a day in “late February 2021” 25,000 could be in hospital at the worst of the peak 5,000 may be in intensive care in England alone by March A study commissioned by Sir Patrick Vallance was even more pessimistic – predicting 120,000 excess deaths over the winter. There could be 500 daily deaths for "at least" three months, with a shocking peak of 800 a day by "late February 2021".
Pretty close to my estimate that his odds now are down to snake eyes (1/36), from having previously said it was the equivalent of rolling 11+ (1/12).
Now have £1.7k invested in a Biden win. I am just putting this on the record while nobody much is awake to read it, to avoid any future allegations of aftertiming.
@HYUFD the polls are being weighted to account for those white voters without degrees now. So why do you think the polls will be wrong again?
Rasmussen were right in 2016, their final national poll was Clinton +2%, this week they have had a Trump 1% lead or Biden +2%.
Trafalgar were right in Michigan and Pennsylvania and still have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tied.
ABC today also had Trump ahead both in the suburbs 49% to 46% for Biden as well as with non college educated whites 56% to 38% for Biden in Michigan and if they turn out in big enough numbers he could again win the pivotal swing state
Think you might need to remember that Rasmussen were not the only ones to get the final national vote correct in 2016, many pollsters correctly got it well within the margin of error and most of those in 2020 not showing a Trump lead or even a low Biden lead. Rasmussen were also 10 points off in 2018 in GOP favour.
PA - 32.1% MI - 48.0% WI - 51.9% FL - 72.2% NC - 76.1% AZ - 74.4%
So PA the lowest by far - from the link it appears that this is because PA has no early in-person voting so all early votes are by mail. So far 64% of mail ballots issued in PA have been returned which appears pretty good compared to rest of USA. Of course some people issued a mail ballot may actually then vote in person.
You can still get 11/5 on Barbara Bollier to win the Senate race for the Democrats in Kansas. This is a really good value bet. She's a former Republican fighting against a relatively unknown Roger Marshall. By value I mean that she should be shorter than 11/5.
A poll out yesterday had her +1 or neck and neck depending if you round up. It could be a very close race and I am on her to take it and split the Kansas ticket.
@HYUFD the polls are being weighted to account for those white voters without degrees now. So why do you think the polls will be wrong again?
Rasmussen were right in 2016, their final national poll was Clinton +2%, this week they have had a Trump 1% lead or Biden +2%.
Trafalgar were right in Michigan and Pennsylvania and still have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tied.
ABC today also had Trump ahead both in the suburbs 49% to 46% for Biden as well as with non college educated whites 56% to 38% for Biden in Michigan and if they turn out in big enough numbers he could again win the pivotal swing state
HYUFD isn't paying attention to what's actually happening on the ground in the US and instead is cherry picking the occasional poll, usually of dubious provenance, to back up a predisposed political affiliation.
In this final week neither candidate is campaigning in a single state that Trump lost in 2016.
In other words, Trump is on the defence and Biden is on the offence. The GOP know (unlike HYUFD) that Trump is fighting a losing battle.
You really really need to be listening to what's happening and bet accordingly. There's some terrific value still to be had in an election that's under a week away. This article is well worth reading. The timing of the pandemic surge is the final nail in Trump's coffin. The Midwest in particular is moving Democrat even as the second wave sweeps through.
You can still get 11/5 on Barbara Bollier to win the Senate race for the Democrats in Kansas. This is a really good value bet. She's a former Republican fighting against a relatively unknown Roger Marshall. By value I mean that she should be shorter than 11/5.
A poll out yesterday had her +1 or neck and neck depending if you round up. It could be a very close race and I am on her to take it and split the Kansas ticket.
You can still get 11/5 on Barbara Bollier to win the Senate race for the Democrats in Kansas. This is a really good value bet. She's a former Republican fighting against a relatively unknown Roger Marshall. By value I mean that she should be shorter than 11/5.
A poll out yesterday had her +1 or neck and neck depending if you round up. It could be a very close race and I am on her to take it and split the Kansas ticket.
You can still get 11/5 on Barbara Bollier to win the Senate race for the Democrats in Kansas. This is a really good value bet. She's a former Republican fighting against a relatively unknown Roger Marshall. By value I mean that she should be shorter than 11/5.
A poll out yesterday had her +1 or neck and neck depending if you round up. It could be a very close race and I am on her to take it and split the Kansas ticket.
In case anyone does not know, Ladbrokes (and Corals, both owned by GVC) no longer have their prices shown on Oddschecker, so it it is always worth checking their prices separately, especially as Ladbrokes are our leading bookmaker for politics.
REACT study is seriously bad news. My guess would be we are now past the point where a circuit breaker could save Christmas.
Hope I'm wrong but think we will need a longer lockdown.
Probably every week we wait means 2 more later.
HMG could perhaps drop the Rule of Six for Christmas, provided the 2-household limit is observed. That way, extended families can enjoy spend Christmas together, even if in shifts for larger families.
REACT study is seriously bad news. My guess would be we are now past the point where a circuit breaker could save Christmas.
Hope I'm wrong but think we will need a longer lockdown.
Probably every week we wait means 2 more later.
The rare of increase is not so dramatic as in the spring, but you would imagined government might have learned from that that it is utterly counterproductive to delay implementing an intervention which you’re probably going to end up doing anyway. It was around half term back then, too.
Pretty impressive results for the Regeneron antibody used as a prophylactic early in an infection. Nowhere near enough supply to use it in this manner, though; antibodies are slow and very expensive to manufacture.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
Which would mean that only 20% of new cases are being detected.
As there is no shortage of testing capacity it would also mean that there are a far more asymptomatic cases than symptomatic.
It would also mean that new cases in European countries were at absolutely incredible levels given that testing is lower in those places.
And finally if R is above 2 in various places it would mean that masks etc having almost no use.
Or perhaps the study is a bit bollox ?
That we're only catching a fraction of the cases is matched by the ONS survey and all other research, it shouldn't be a shock. Though not normally 20% I think?
That there is asymptomatic (and/or mild symptomatic) cases is well known true.
Yes new cases in Europe are much higher than reported figures. The Positivity rate in France has gone through the roof.
Masks aren't worn everywhere but without masks the R was 3 originally.
Masks are widely worn, people socially distance and self isolate, there are restrictions on high risk events and places.
So if R is anywhere near 3 then either those things are worthless, the virus has suddenly become more virulent or the study is wrong.
And if anything like 80% of cases are asymptomatic then we will rapidly get herd immunity.
Finally if they think 100k are being infected every day then the infection rate in March must have been many times that.
Which seems extremely doubtful.
It can't have been many times more than 100k, because if it had been, we would have much higher antibody positive testing levels since then and also we now have a rough idea about IFR, and the deaths would have been significantly higher.
Indeed.
For this study to be correct it would mean that the virus has become easier to become infected with but for the asymptomatic rate to increase to 80%.
If true then herd immunity is going to be achieved and we might as well give up on restrictions.
Sadly, I think the obvious answer is that Imperial are talking shite.
This is excellent. But this has been the core Japanese message since *March*, WTF are the British still doing banging on about hands face space or whatever?
Just made an extraordinary discovery by playing with the US Covid numbers for the year. If you rank the States in terms of the number of cases per million people, which is a fair measure of how badly the virus has been disseminated, the first 17 States all voted for Trump in 2019.
My initial thought was that there is a degree of spurious accuracy in this and really some sort of bands should be shown for each scenario but on reflection it is worth that for the clarity of the message, especially the importance of ventilation.
As I posted yesterday, I thought there was a good chance that, given the huge pressure the testing system is under, there would be an increase in false positives.
Seems I'm not alone. The pathologist Dr Clare Craig agrees:
"The laboratories have been under huge pressure to increase throughput whilst also increasing turnaround times. Any pathologist would predict a rise in errors in such a scenario, despite the best efforts of the technicians acting in complete good faith. The type of testing carried out for Covid can quite easily produce false positive results without exceptionally high levels of cleanliness to prevent cross contamination with frequent replacement of protective clothing and frequent cleaning of every area of the laboratory from bench to fridge handles. Any rise in errors causing increased false positives would inevitably lead to the mistaken belief that cases were on the rise."
Her article is an absolute belter. Raises serious questions over the stats for deaths from covid which are higher than they should be given the number who are very ill with covid.
"The only explanation for the significant divergence between the lack of severe cases and a rising death count is that the official statistics are relying on erroneous data."
Edit: This might explain Germany's low death rate?
Jesus Christ, THIS sort of shite is why we’re going to end up back in a full lockdown.
Toby Young and his ilk, their credulous and desperate followers, the denialists - THAT’S the biggest difference around how countries are doing. How many self-deluding denialists go around frantically flailing for reasons to say “it’s not real, it’s not real, it’s not real, it’s not real, it’s not real.”
Wake up and smell the goddamn coffee!
My son had a hell of a time in the first lockdown; autistic kids don’t do well in that scenario. And thanks to the marching morons of misinformation, the disciples of Dunning-Kruger, the wizards of wishful thinking, we’re going to end up right back in it as the hospitals overflow while the fools who lap up Young’s lockdownsceptics stupidity continue to yammer desperately, “no, but false positives, Sweden, herd immunity, not the young, doesn’t really harm people, no, no, no.”
This entire pandemic has exposed just how desperately the country needs to be trained in elementary critical thinking and basic statistics. Because the moment wishful thinking kicks in, previously intelligent people become the most gullible in the world.
Do the (elected, potentially partisan) people in each county get to decide what to count first? We could have the Dems counting all the Dem-heavy ballots first, and the GOP counting all the GOP-heavy ballots first, and everyone competing in a mad scramble to count faster and set the narrative...
My initial thought was that there is a degree of spurious accuracy in this and really some sort of bands should be shown for each scenario but on reflection it is worth that for the clarity of the message, especially the importance of ventilation.
The irony (to bang on about schools again) is that according to that model by keeping children in one room for several hours at a stretch we’re adopting precisely the worst way of trying to control it.
Moving between classrooms every hour wearing masks would be better, especially as, to put it mildly, the distances shown in that graphic are optimistic.
The thing I like about that clip is how calm Osoff remains. He’s not angry, he’s not blustering, he’s just simply stating facts as facts in a tone of mingled disappointment and contempt.
Perdue looks like he’s being forced to drink neat horse piss.
My initial thought was that there is a degree of spurious accuracy in this and really some sort of bands should be shown for each scenario but on reflection it is worth that for the clarity of the message, especially the importance of ventilation.
The irony (to bang on about schools again) is that according to that model by keeping children in one room for several hours at a stretch we’re adopting precisely the worst way of trying to control it.
Moving between classrooms every hour wearing masks would be better, especially as, to put it mildly, the distances shown in that graphic are optimistic.
If schools are still built around quadrangles, it would be simple enough to allow socially-distanced classroom changes by stipulating a clockwise-only rule (or anti-clockwise in Scotland).
The problem of the teacher showering 2b can be mitigated by providing a mask and a microphone so teachers do not need to project their voices to the back row.
@HYUFD the polls are being weighted to account for those white voters without degrees now. So why do you think the polls will be wrong again?
Rasmussen were right in 2016, their final national poll was Clinton +2%, this week they have had a Trump 1% lead or Biden +2%.
Trafalgar were right in Michigan and Pennsylvania and still have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tied.
ABC today also had Trump ahead both in the suburbs 49% to 46% for Biden as well as with non college educated whites 56% to 38% for Biden in Michigan and if they turn out in big enough numbers he could again win the pivotal swing state
That does not answer the question. I asked why you think polls are still undercounting white blue collar voters if they are now being weighted for. I didn’t ask “how Trump wins”.
Ossoff is worth a bet to win in Georgia. He's very effective and this message is hitting home hard with voters. You can still get on him at 2/1 with Betfair which is good value considering he's ahead in latest polls.
My initial thought was that there is a degree of spurious accuracy in this and really some sort of bands should be shown for each scenario but on reflection it is worth that for the clarity of the message, especially the importance of ventilation.
The irony (to bang on about schools again) is that according to that model by keeping children in one room for several hours at a stretch we’re adopting precisely the worst way of trying to control it.
Moving between classrooms every hour wearing masks would be better, especially as, to put it mildly, the distances shown in that graphic are optimistic.
If schools are still built around quadrangles, it would be simple enough to allow socially-distanced classroom changes by stipulating a clockwise-only rule (or anti-clockwise in Scotland).
The problem of the teacher showering 2b can be mitigated by providing a mask and a microphone so teachers do not need to project their voices to the back row.
They’re not. Most of them have sort of grown higgledy piggledy over the years so they’re not built around anything.
Just made an extraordinary discovery by playing with the US Covid numbers for the year. If you rank the States in terms of the number of cases per million people, which is a fair measure of how badly the virus has been disseminated, the first 17 States all voted for Trump in 2019.
It is why Trump will lose. At first it was Democrat-controlled areas that the virus hit so Trump could blame Democrat governors and mayors but recently it has cut a swathe through his own supporters.
My initial thought was that there is a degree of spurious accuracy in this and really some sort of bands should be shown for each scenario but on reflection it is worth that for the clarity of the message, especially the importance of ventilation.
Yes, that’s pretty good. Basically, open the window and stay away from busy indoor restaurants.
Interesting that pupils in a classroom aren’t much of a risk but the teacher potentially is.
Comments
In same way that confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett and other conservative federal judges is likely to be the crowning achievement for Mitch McConnell, regardless of whether he wins re-election next Tuesday or not (and I think he will).
Trafalgar were right in Michigan and Pennsylvania and still have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tied.
ABC today also had Trump ahead both in the suburbs 49% to 46% for Biden as well as with non college educated whites 56% to 38% for Biden in Michigan and if they turn out in big enough numbers he could again win the pivotal swing state
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/covid-surge-hurts-trump-wisconsin-biden-leads-closer/story?id=73834112
The usual line from the top brass of the parties is that it is for PR to decide and they haven't had a clear unambiguous vote in favour of it yet - in which case there's no reason for the likes of Pelosi to jump into the politics which would only make it a more party political issue.
But PR are having a referendum on this issue on Tuesday and for the first time ever it is a clear and unambiguous binary choice. If they vote No then that's the end of the matter - but if they vote Yes then what possible reason is there for Congress to reject PR's request for Statehood?
I’m a big fan of the BBC. Yes, it’s not perfect, is a bit left of centre, liberal in outlook and very PC. But, as Nick says, it tries to present the news impartially and, in my view, mostly succeeds. It understands that we are a diverse society and seeks to represent that diversity in its news reports.
Just like every other State in the Union.
Nearly 100,000 people are catching coronavirus every day in England, a major analysis suggests.
The study, by Imperial College London, says the pace of the epidemic is accelerating and estimates the number of people infected is now doubling every nine days.
The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54723962
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1312067363366490112
In fact, even BETTER for Pelosi, in the sense that PR statehood would be some red meat (pun intended) she could throw (with about zero downside) to AOC (remember her?) and progressive in Congress AND across the US. from San Juan to Sitka.
The PR referendum uses the exact same language as was used in both Hawaii and Alaska's referendum too.
So if the Democrats are elected on a platform recognising PR's right to self-determination - and if PR votes to become a State "immediately" - then why would the Democrats not honour their platform and PR's voters wishes?
Barring a terrible night for the Democrats on Tuesday - or a No vote in PR's referendum - PR statehood must be an almost locked on certainty.
Just kind of a shame that 50 was a nice round number for States and 100 was a nice round number for the Senate. Nevermind.
>note this compares with 2016 cumulative EDay -6 ballot returns = 1,379,879 (32.3% of 4.3m active reg)
>further note that in 2016 general final turnout = 3,363,440 (76.1% of active reg)
> IF final statewide turnout reaches 85% this year, then ballots returned by tonight are exactly 2/3 (66.7%) of the projected final ballots cast; f turnout is lower, then percent already voted in higher.
As to partisanship, returns so far are definitely sweeter for Democrats than Republicans, based on modeling (no party registration in Evergreen State).
Strong evidence for this is the current return rates (as % of active reg) from most Democratic part of WA
> King County = 58.5% or +1.8% ahead of statewide
Don't have updated # for Seattle (part of KC) but city returns have been running ahead of county - reverse of usual pattern.
The ONS survey shows the true state of the pandemic and that was past 50k then wasn't it?
As there is no shortage of testing capacity it would also mean that there are a far more asymptomatic cases than symptomatic.
It would also mean that new cases in European countries were at absolutely incredible levels given that testing is lower in those places.
And finally if R is above 2 in various places it would mean that masks etc having almost no use.
Or perhaps the study is a bit bollox ?
That there is asymptomatic (and/or mild symptomatic) cases is well known true.
Yes new cases in Europe are much higher than reported figures. The Positivity rate in France has gone through the roof.
Masks aren't worn everywhere but without masks the R was 3 originally.
So Andrew Neil was correct.
> instead of one large state, created two average-size (for Great Plains) states.
> other (and more important) consideration, was that there were SIX territories over-rip for statehood in late 1880s; three were though likely to vote Democratic (Idaho, Montana & Wyoming) while just two were considered good prospects for Republicans (Dakota & Washington). SO to get them all through, was decided to even things up by dividing DT into two separate states.
Since then the positivity rate has gone from 0.6% to nearly 10% and the ONS shows we aren't catching as high a percentage of cases. So comparing 18k to the 3k is meaningless gibberish that Andrew Neil would rightly call out as preposterous nonsense if someone tried to pull a stunt like that with him.
So if R is anywhere near 3 then either those things are worthless, the virus has suddenly become more virulent or the study is wrong.
And if anything like 80% of cases are asymptomatic then we will rapidly get herd immunity.
Finally if they think 100k are being infected every day then the infection rate in March must have been many times that.
Which seems extremely doubtful.
So Andrew Neil was correct.
For this study to be correct it would mean that the virus has become easier to become infected with but for the asymptomatic rate to increase to 80%.
If true then herd immunity is going to be achieved and we might as well give up on restrictions.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1321615081407418371?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1321608294990008324?s=20
The average time across all ages (per 2019 BBC Annual Report) was 7 hours 36 minutes - see link to 2019 BBC Annual Report - graph at bottom of Page 57.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2018-19.pdf
Who was FIERCELY proud of his heritage - who insisted that all his children be born on the island.
Don't know how he'd vote if he were alive today. Reckon he'd be conflicted - like many others, indeed one reason why PR has defaulted to Commonwealth status.
Because you see, while the upcoming referendum is yes or no on statehood question, every since Spain ran down her flag over El Morro in 1898 there have been THREE possible options beyond subject colony:
> statehood
> independence
> in-between, which is commonwealth = status quo since 1952
Historically sentiment for independence has been strong, but actual political or voting as opposed to emotional support has been weak. For one thing, conditions in Cuba, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Haiti & rest of Caribbean aside from the Cayman Islands do NOT make prospect of independence look overly appealing.
As a result, independistas are among Puerto Rico's greatest martyrs - such as the PR nationalists who tried to assassinate Harry Truman and shot up the US House of Representative chamber. But NOT it's great policos.
THAT field has been left to advocates of statehood, traditionally and currently aligned with US Republicans; and commonwealth supporters aligned with - you guessed it! - US Democrats.
Which is why the 2020 Democratic National Platform - and Speaker Pelosi - are careful NOT to advocate "statehood" but rather "self-determination". So neutral on the issue in question - leaving that up to Puerto Ricans to decide.
And IF they decide for statehood, and Biden is President, then Democrats will make it so, with plenty of voting support from Marco Rubio & other GOPers.
The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation donated 375,000 dollars in 2012.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Peace_Institute#cite_note-15
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1321548174427852801?s=21
Most recent poll has virtual tie 43 yes, 43 no, 13% undecided
But previous polls showed lead for yes.
¡Agárrate a tu sombrero!
"The poll finds that among those who have already voted (64% Biden to 34% Trump) or who plan to vote early but had not yet done so at the time they were interviewed (63% Biden to 33% Trump), Biden holds nearly two-thirds support. Trump leads 59% to 36%, though, among those who say they plan to vote on Election Day."
Apply that to the Wisconsin figures and Trump gets nowhere near;
3,583,804 active registered voters on October 1, 2020.
Ballots Requested: 1,426,224
Ballots returned 1,132,393 (78.4%)
In-person votes 413,183
So, about 50% of all RV have voted. Say only another 161,000 vote by E-day, bringing the total to 2 million early voters. And say total turnout reaches 75%, or 2.7 million, there are only 700,000 voters on E-day for Trump to make up the difference.
2 million = 1,280,000 to 680,000 Biden/Trump. Trump has to win 650,000 to 50,000 on the day.
Edit, got numbers mixed up.
Apply that to the Wisconsin figures and Trump gets nowhere near;
3,583,804 active registered voters on October 1, 2020.
Ballots Requested: 1,426,224
Ballots returned 1,132,393 (78.4%)
In-person votes 413,183
So,
1,545,576 have voted already
Say only another 154,426 vote by E-day,
This brings the total to 1.7 million early voters.
And say total turnout reaches 75%, or 2.7 million, there are only 1,000,000 voters on E-day for Trump to make up the difference.
1.7 million = 1,088,000 to 578,000 Biden/Trump - a Biden lead of 510,000
Trump has to win 755,000 to 245,000 on the day, i.e. 75.5% of the vote on the day
1.7 million = 986,000 to 680,000 Biden/Trump - a Biden lead of 306,000
Trump has to win 653,000 to 347,000 on the day, i.e. 65.3% of the vote on the day. A 59/36 split on the day leaves Trump 76,000 short.
Lockdown rules need to be "sustained until the end of March 2021, and some restrictions would be in place until April or longer.
The doomsday document also claimed:
Deaths would peak at around 800 a day in “late February 2021”
25,000 could be in hospital at the worst of the peak
5,000 may be in intensive care in England alone by March
A study commissioned by Sir Patrick Vallance was even more pessimistic – predicting 120,000 excess deaths over the winter.
There could be 500 daily deaths for "at least" three months, with a shocking peak of 800 a day by "late February 2021".
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13046707/covid-lockdown-march-doomsday-docs/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/scientists-hope-for-coronavirus-vaccine-by-christmas-nv03jlvb3
Seriously. This IS war. Like Christmas 1944, with way less blood but far more coughing & sneezing.
Numbers continuing to rise at similar rate - 5.5m votes recorded in last 24 hours.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
PA - 32.1%
MI - 48.0%
WI - 51.9%
FL - 72.2%
NC - 76.1%
AZ - 74.4%
So PA the lowest by far - from the link it appears that this is because PA has no early in-person voting so all early votes are by mail. So far 64% of mail ballots issued in PA have been returned which appears pretty good compared to rest of USA. Of course some people issued a mail ballot may actually then vote in person.
A poll out yesterday had her +1 or neck and neck depending if you round up. It could be a very close race and I am on her to take it and split the Kansas ticket.
Warning. The following link is not impartial! https://bollierforkansas.com/new-kssen-poll-bollier-1/
In this final week neither candidate is campaigning in a single state that Trump lost in 2016.
In other words, Trump is on the defence and Biden is on the offence. The GOP know (unlike HYUFD) that Trump is fighting a losing battle.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/29/politics/donald-trump-election-2020-coronavirus/index.html
My guess would be we are now past the point where a circuit breaker could save Christmas.
Hope I'm wrong but think we will need a longer lockdown.
Probably every week we wait means 2 more later.
She should be shorter than 3/1, which isn't the same as saying I think she's going to win. Just that she has a better than 3/1 chance of doing so.
It was around half term back then, too.
https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1321627987847139329
https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-hunter-biden-documents-vanish-los-angeles
https://twitter.com/megtirrell/status/1321558486271053825
https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1321609930382585856
DC pays more tax than at least a dozen states.
Third degree burn.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1321653493871108097
cases pr
million
1 North Dakota 52,367
2 South Dakota 47,476
3 Mississippi 39,520
4 Louisiana 39,030
5 Iowa 38,407
6 Alabama 38,282
7 Tennessee 37,226
8 Florida 36,802
9 Wisconsin 36,089
10 Arkansas 36,000
11 Idaho 34,573
12 Nebraska 34,401
13 Utah 33,938
14 South Carolina 33,696
15 Georgia 33,438
16 Arizona 33,133
17 Texas 32,240
18 Nevada 31,647
19 Illinois 31,077
Surely this cannot be a coincidence?
Toby Young and his ilk, their credulous and desperate followers, the denialists - THAT’S the biggest difference around how countries are doing. How many self-deluding denialists go around frantically flailing for reasons to say “it’s not real, it’s not real, it’s not real, it’s not real, it’s not real.”
Wake up and smell the goddamn coffee!
My son had a hell of a time in the first lockdown; autistic kids don’t do well in that scenario. And thanks to the marching morons of misinformation, the disciples of Dunning-Kruger, the wizards of wishful thinking, we’re going to end up right back in it as the hospitals overflow while the fools who lap up Young’s lockdownsceptics stupidity continue to yammer desperately, “no, but false positives, Sweden, herd immunity, not the young, doesn’t really harm people, no, no, no.”
This entire pandemic has exposed just how desperately the country needs to be trained in elementary critical thinking and basic statistics. Because the moment wishful thinking kicks in, previously intelligent people become the most gullible in the world.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1321647861780676609
https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1321715338644496389
Moving between classrooms every hour wearing masks would be better, especially as, to put it mildly, the distances shown in that graphic are optimistic.
https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/1321473792653381639?s=19
Oh.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/28/opinions/trump-husband-remarks-will-alienate-suburban-women-alaimo/index.html
Perdue looks like he’s being forced to drink neat horse piss.
The problem of the teacher showering 2b can be mitigated by providing a mask and a microphone so teachers do not need to project their voices to the back row.
Ossoff is worth a bet to win in Georgia. He's very effective and this message is hitting home hard with voters. You can still get on him at 2/1 with Betfair which is good value considering he's ahead in latest polls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19El-UoFEwc
Interesting that pupils in a classroom aren’t much of a risk but the teacher potentially is.