WH2020: Key state turnout as percentage of votes cast – politicalbetting.com
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var e in a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-"+e)||document.querySelector("iframe[src*='"+e+"']");t&&(t.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][e]+"px")}}))}();
Comments
-
test
Edit: FIRST!0 -
Second let’s talk about something other than covid, there are no solutions.1
-
These numbers are low in the rustbelt because the early voting there is postal only (And they're not normal postal voting states like Arizona). The "in person" stats there are hand delivered mail ballots I believe.0
-
fourth0
-
Mazeltov.alex_ said:test
Edit: FIRST!0 -
Happy Halloween y'all0
-
Waking up to news of a national lockdown, makes me think it's time to pop up on PB with PJH's Law of Management Decision Making, honed from years of trying to rescue failing IT projects whose failure could generally be ascribed to starting too late:
"If there is an option to not make a decision, that is the decision management will make"
I'm afraid my Law is rarely broken, and this government has proved it in spades over Covid.0 -
"buying" in the lead must be the auto-spellcheck in action?0
-
Joe Buying, according to OGH0
-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/qld/2020/results/party-totals quite early, but looks like a reasonably good night for Labor in Queensland with both themselves and the greens up a smidgen.1
-
Being grumpy, the fact that there won't be much of a one this year is a tiny silver lining to all the misery.londonpubman said:Happy Halloween y'all
Let's hope we don't go the way of the US with tacky halloween trees in shops and hotels throughout October.1 -
Thank God for the American election. Positive outcome or not it is at least a distraction from the unrelenting misery of life.1
-
The public have never been against lockdown and they must know that so I cannot think that's the reason.Scott_xP said:
If it's working it no longer matters as every bit of reporting says it's not.alex_ said:
Official R number in the North West is currently 1.0-1.2. The lowest in the country.NickPalmer said:
Foxy mentioned that the R number has dropped sharply in the NE, not sure about the NW.alex_ said:Can somebody explain something to me, please?
The papers today are all full of the dire warnings from SAGE that the Tier system is 'ineffective' and that we are on an inexorable course towards hospitals being overwhelmed etc as a result.
Is any of this actually based on data, rather than surmise, collected since the Tier system was introduced.
Aren't most of the SAGE analysis of cases based on data that predated the Tier system being introduced. The tier system was only introduced a little over 2 weeks ago. Only Liverpool has been in it for the full period. Greater Manchester little more than a week!
We know that hospitalisations and deaths are a lagging indicator so up-to-date evidence of that also largely predates the Tier system.
Now the scientists may well be "right" about the Tier system. But is any of their opinion based on actual data? Or might the Tier system actually be having an effect (as evidence by the slow down in published daily case numbers, rather than the "old" data from ONS etc)?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk#:~:text=The R number range for,as of 7 August 2020.&text=The R number range for,as of 31 July 2020.&text=The R number range for,as of 24 July 2020.
The evidence of R seems to suggest that the Tier system is working. It's not surprising it's highest in areas where restrictions are lowest. I'm sure somebody will explain why this is wrong. Probably quote that Imperial College "study" or something....
0 -
I've put some money on the democrats winning texas this morning..
(In light of the proposed lockdown announcement - where can I get a good price on Johnson being removed first half of 2021?)0 -
..0
-
With furlough ending I'd expect a sharp shock to the Tory poll rating soon.0
-
Well it's currently the only thing we can retain some hope for. But this is 2020. Is it really likely that the year will redeem itself in November?kle4 said:Thank God for the American election. Positive outcome or not it is at least a distraction from the unrelenting misery of life.
0 -
OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?0 -
October 1974 general election on all day today on BBC Parliament.
Started at 9am.0 -
Buying = Bidenpeter_from_putney said:OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?0 -
-
"Biden coming out on top in Texas". Smithson doesn't proof read his articles.peter_from_putney said:OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?0 -
OGH needs to type Biden into his browser a little more often!peter_from_putney said:OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?0 -
Pauline Hanson One nation el collapso in Queensland.2
-
Things I'd like to see in this impossible world
1. How well have the SAGE estimates of the growth rate of the epidemic matched up to reality? We now have many weeks of calculations from SAGE of the daily & weekly growth rate. When integrated over time, how do these predictions actually compare against cases reported? I understand the growth in testing makes this a little more difficult, but this is still not a hard calculation to do.
(I am not one of those who think SAGE has done well, but this is more based on overall impression that their pronouncements lack 'scientific' common sense rather than hard analysis).
2. How well have the many model predictions from Ferguson, from King's College, from Washington, and so on, fared when matched with the data. I understand this is a bit harder, as the politicians and policy models respond to the models, so all scenarios are liable to being falsified by events in one way or another. Also, I think the main aim of the models is understanding -- rather than predictions -- but if policy makers use the models to inform policy, then some benchmarking of which models are trustworthy is needed.
Unless there is some attempt to understand which models have performed well (with respect to the past), or whether SAGE has performed well (with respect to the past), then there is no way of evaluating the reliability of their current advice or their predictions.
I also am not one who is interested in the blame game, here. I think it is absolutely inevitable that scientists predicting the behaviour of a still largely unknown disease will make some mistakes.1 -
Is it the dictaphone?peter_from_putney said:OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?
0 -
As in betting on Biden is Buying money.ThomasNashe said:
Buying = Bidenpeter_from_putney said:OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?0 -
I think that the predictions of 4,000 deaths a day are a huge exaggeration when you look at the current levels of cases, and the slow growth rate over the last week or two, where the growth in cases has virtually stalled.
SAGE are claiming that their worst-case scenario will be exceeded many times over. This proves that either they are useless at scenario planning or that their initial worst-case scenario was deliberately too optimistic. How can we trust them now?
They know that Boris Johnson is not a science graduate, and this goes for nearly all other members of the cabinet. Boris could have studied science or mathematics at Oxford instead of classics, and then he might have been better prepared to serve the government. As it is the members of SAGE can say practically anything they like, and the government cannot contradict them. The government has legal and financial expertise, but it does not have scientific expertise and we are paying a high price for this.0 -
Is anyone selling buying on the spreads?IanB2 said:
OGH needs to type Biden into his browser a little more often!peter_from_putney said:OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?0 -
0
-
Need to be a bit cautious on comparing these figures between states, as they have very different rules on early voting.
So Pennsylvania, for example, has historically been very restrictive and, while it was liberalised in 2019, it is still something of a faff and people aren't used to absentee voting. Technically, in Pennsylvania, I understand you can hand in a postal or absentee ballot early. You can apply for the ballot on your visit to the county election office, but it's all more time-consuming than voting on election day. Whereas, in other states with higher early voting, it is a lot simpler and pretty much like election day.
In fact, Pennsylvania is a state where early voting has increased most compared with 2016, but from a low base so it's short of the national average on total ballots cast as a percentage of 2016.
Therefore the chart does not necessarily reflect enthusiasm in different states or the extent to which turnout will be up on 2016.0 -
What's fascinating about GE1974 (apart from the timewarp technology, post industrial decay, and terrible fashion) is how contemporary some of the debates sound.
There's a lot on Scottish nationalism and on tactical voting and possible electoral reform.
Focus groups seem much more respectful to one another though.1 -
I'm buying buying in huge huge size size.williamglenn said:
Is anyone selling buying on the spreads?IanB2 said:
OGH needs to type Biden into his browser a little more often!peter_from_putney said:OGH: "As I have reported before my big bet in this election is on buying coming out top in Texas and I’m sticking with it."
Eh?1 -
Weren't all the newspapers quoting a "senior Downing street source..."?Scott_xP said:0 -
Really I should watch that, as it is the first one that registered with me and I did actually get up early to watch the results (AIR they didnt broadcast all night in those days)Casino_Royale said:What's fascinating about GE1974 (apart from the timewarp technology, post industrial decay, and terrible fashion) is how contemporary some of the debates sound.
There's a lot on Scottish nationalism and on tactical voting and possible electoral reform.
Focus groups seem much more respectful to one another though.0 -
You hit the nail on the head with "Also, I think the main aim of the models is understanding -- rather than predictions".YBarddCwsc said:Things I'd like to see in this impossible world
1. How well have the SAGE estimates of the growth rate of the epidemic matched up to reality? We now have many weeks of calculations from SAGE of the daily & weekly growth rate. When integrated over time, how do these predictions actually compare against cases reported? I understand the growth in testing makes this a little more difficult, but this is still not a hard calculation to do.
(I am not one of those who think SAGE has done well, but this is more based on overall impression that their pronouncements lack 'scientific' common sense rather than hard analysis).
2. How well have the many model predictions from Ferguson, from King's College, from Washington, and so on, fared when matched with the data. I understand this is a bit harder, as the politicians and policy models respond to the models, so all scenarios are liable to being falsified by events in one way or another. Also, I think the main aim of the models is understanding -- rather than predictions -- but if policy makers use the models to inform policy, then some benchmarking of which models are trustworthy is needed.
Unless there is some attempt to understand which models have performed well (with respect to the past), or whether SAGE has performed well (with respect to the past), then there is no way of evaluating the reliability of their current advice or their predictions.
I also am not one who is interested in the blame game, here. I think it is absolutely inevitable that scientists predicting the behaviour of a still largely unknown disease will make some mistakes.
The major difficulty is that projections are not forecasts, but that distinction is lost on a great number of people. Better work could be done communicating this stuff to the public, but the old maxim about leading a horse to water applies. And worse, there are some who will wilfully misunderstand science in order to discredit someone because of ideological axe-grinding.
In complex human systems, the very act of making a forecast can change the outcome. An exponential graph might scare people into lowering their risk exposure, reducing the spread, nullifying the forecast. Then everybody goes crazy about how the "prediction" was wrong, because they didn't understand the nature of the forecast.3 -
Hmmm.Scott_xP said:
Hancock is surely too weedy to engage in this sort of thing.
Gove has form.
Sunak has motive.
It would be a bit odd (but not totally impossible knowing Cummings) for Johnson to launch an inquiry into his own leak.
An interesting one.4 -
-
This government is rowing with one ore. Time for Johnson to go.Scott_xP said:1 -
Except that the legal and financial expertise they do have is being used against our best interests by this gang of crooks and charlatans.fox327 said:I think that the predictions of 4,000 deaths a day are a huge exaggeration when you look at the current levels of cases, and the slow growth rate over the last week or two, where the growth in cases has virtually stalled.
SAGE are claiming that their worst-case scenario will be exceeded many times over. This proves that either they are useless at scenario planning or that their initial worst-case scenario was deliberately too optimistic. How can we trust them now?
They know that Boris Johnson is not a science graduate, and this goes for nearly all other members of the cabinet. Boris could have studied science or mathematics at Oxford instead of classics, and then he might have been better prepared to serve the government. As it is the members of SAGE can say practically anything they like, and the government cannot contradict them. The government has legal and financial expertise, but it does not have scientific expertise and we are paying a high price for this.0 -
Evaluation of SAGE predictions vs outcomes is in short supply. Can anyone point to where it might appear, in a form which helps promote understanding?YBarddCwsc said:Things I'd like to see in this impossible world
1. How well have the SAGE estimates of the growth rate of the epidemic matched up to reality? We now have many weeks of calculations from SAGE of the daily & weekly growth rate. When integrated over time, how do these predictions actually compare against cases reported? I understand the growth in testing makes this a little more difficult, but this is still not a hard calculation to do.
(I am not one of those who think SAGE has done well, but this is more based on overall impression that their pronouncements lack 'scientific' common sense rather than hard analysis).
2. How well have the many model predictions from Ferguson, from King's College, from Washington, and so on, fared when matched with the data. I understand this is a bit harder, as the politicians and policy models respond to the models, so all scenarios are liable to being falsified by events in one way or another. Also, I think the main aim of the models is understanding -- rather than predictions -- but if policy makers use the models to inform policy, then some benchmarking of which models are trustworthy is needed.
Unless there is some attempt to understand which models have performed well (with respect to the past), or whether SAGE has performed well (with respect to the past), then there is no way of evaluating the reliability of their current advice or their predictions.
I also am not one who is interested in the blame game, here. I think it is absolutely inevitable that scientists predicting the behaviour of a still largely unknown disease will make some mistakes.0 -
I see 538 and Trafalgar have come to an “arrangement”.0
-
Electoral reform is the last refuge of a loser.Casino_Royale said:What's fascinating about GE1974 (apart from the timewarp technology, post industrial decay, and terrible fashion) is how contemporary some of the debates sound.
There's a lot on Scottish nationalism and on tactical voting and possible electoral reform.
We can see this clearly from Canada's Liberals.
When they were beaten into third place by the NDP in the federal elections, they were suddenly in favour of electoral reform. Now the Liberals are winning federal elections (despite losing the popular vote), so they are not interested any more.
Soon, the Liberals will lose an election, and they will be back in favour of electoral reform again.
The cycle can continue indefinitely.
(I am not myself against electoral reform, but the thought it can ever be introduced is for the birds. The winner of any election -- almost by definition -- thinks the existing electoral system is great).0 -
Small bit of good news, to match the sea eagles on Wight discussed yesterday: it's actually rather pretty:alex_ said:
Well it's currently the only thing we can retain some hope for. But this is 2020. Is it really likely that the year will redeem itself in November?kle4 said:Thank God for the American election. Positive outcome or not it is at least a distraction from the unrelenting misery of life.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/31/huge-spider-assumed-extinct-in-britain-discovered-on-mod-site-aoe0 -
There were two general elections in 1974 - which one are you referring to?Casino_Royale said:What's fascinating about GE1974 (apart from the timewarp technology, post industrial decay, and terrible fashion) is how contemporary some of the debates sound.
There's a lot on Scottish nationalism and on tactical voting and possible electoral reform.
Focus groups seem much more respectful to one another though.0 -
https://tenor.com/view/oh-dear-how-sad-never-mind-battery-sergeant-major-williams-gif-11845032Pulpstar said:Pauline Hanson One nation el collapso in Queensland.
1 -
I note Jon Ralston has, in terms, called Nevada for Biden and from his report I have adjusted my numbers for the state from Biden +5/7 to +6/8 points. Clinton won by 2.5
Also today Anne Selzer (rated A+) will release her final Iowa poll. Her last poll was tied. Trump won by 9 points in 2016.0 -
I've done the same. From "Trafalgar Polls" to "Trafalgar Piles"not_on_fire said:I see 538 and Trafalgar have come to an “arrangement”.
0 -
October. On now..MikeSmithson said:
There were two general elections in 1974 - which one are you referring to?Casino_Royale said:What's fascinating about GE1974 (apart from the timewarp technology, post industrial decay, and terrible fashion) is how contemporary some of the debates sound.
There's a lot on Scottish nationalism and on tactical voting and possible electoral reform.
Focus groups seem much more respectful to one another though.0 -
Although not in the UK, this re-discovered animal is even more amazing.Carnyx said:
Small bit of good news, to match the sea eagles on Wight discussed yesterday: it's actually rather pretty:alex_ said:
Well it's currently the only thing we can retain some hope for. But this is 2020. Is it really likely that the year will redeem itself in November?kle4 said:Thank God for the American election. Positive outcome or not it is at least a distraction from the unrelenting misery of life.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/31/huge-spider-assumed-extinct-in-britain-discovered-on-mod-site-aoe
https://tinyurl.com/y475yuxp1 -
Reposting this from last night. Relative turnout in the most Dem friendly Texas counties. Not sure how informative it is but it is fascinating. Important to note Travis, Bexar, and Harris are now above the state average. Could be important for Sleepy Joe.
1 -
Laura K, has posted a range of projections from several teams re deaths.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1322471602680987653
There is quite difference between groups' projections, though I can't easily work out the pale ranges above and below the tracked lines.0 -
The Labour/LD electoral reform of Holyrood - if that is the right word for the first elections in the Scottish Parliament under universal suffrage - is a nice illustration of your adage. It was certainly (and soi-disant) intended to make sure the SNP opposition could never win.YBarddCwsc said:
Electoral reform is the last refuge of a loser.Casino_Royale said:What's fascinating about GE1974 (apart from the timewarp technology, post industrial decay, and terrible fashion) is how contemporary some of the debates sound.
There's a lot on Scottish nationalism and on tactical voting and possible electoral reform.
We can see this clearly from Canada's Liberals.
When they were beaten into third place by the NDP in the federal elections, they were suddenly in favour of electoral reform. Now the Liberals are winning federal elections (despite losing the popular vote), so they are not interested any more.
Soon, the Liberals will lose an election, and they will be back in favour of electoral reform again.
The cycle can continue indefinitely.
(I am not myself against electoral reform, but the thought it can ever be introduced is for the birds. The winner of any election -- almost by definition -- thinks the existing electoral system is great).
Edit: On the oither hand, here's a counterexample for your final adage. That is that the SNP is in favour of electoral reform for Westminster. Have been for a long time and still are.0 -
They are't furious. They do it themselves enough to not be able to be genuinely mad if it did happen without consent, Yes Minister taught us this decades ago and it just insults us. That they don't bother to investigate other leaks proves they do it, so this is just pathetic.Scott_xP said:1 -
At the time of the Gavin Williamson leak, at least one journalist pointed out that the people who leak often don't realise they're the one doing it.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Hmmm.Scott_xP said:
Hancock is surely too weedy to engage in this sort of thing.
Gove has form.
Sunak has motive.
It would be a bit odd (but not totally impossible knowing Cummings) for Johnson to launch an inquiry into his own leak.
An interesting one.
For example, journalist has educated guess what meeting was about and asks X when the lockdown will start. X is so annoyed/surprised that their words/body language gives the game away, even if they deny/no comment. Journalist now 95% sure, makes a few assumptions, asks the rest of the attendees, and before you know it, there's a story.0 -
Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.0
-
The momentum toward lockdown was enormous before deaths ramped up, so whether they think it the best option or not I don't think the government can hold out. I think I'll tap out, the prospect of months and months more of this, on top of all the political and brexit division as well, is extremely depressing.MaxPB said:Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.
0 -
I think your point 2 makes this extremely difficult. I imagine that any such analysis will have to be done after the fact, when all lagging indicators have completely un-lagged, when there is time to gather comparative data on policies in different countries, and when population behaviour can be gleaned from proxies, with plenty of time for proper science.YBarddCwsc said:Things I'd like to see in this impossible world
1. How well have the SAGE estimates of the growth rate of the epidemic matched up to reality? We now have many weeks of calculations from SAGE of the daily & weekly growth rate. When integrated over time, how do these predictions actually compare against cases reported? I understand the growth in testing makes this a little more difficult, but this is still not a hard calculation to do.
(I am not one of those who think SAGE has done well, but this is more based on overall impression that their pronouncements lack 'scientific' common sense rather than hard analysis).
2. How well have the many model predictions from Ferguson, from King's College, from Washington, and so on, fared when matched with the data. I understand this is a bit harder, as the politicians and policy models respond to the models, so all scenarios are liable to being falsified by events in one way or another. Also, I think the main aim of the models is understanding -- rather than predictions -- but if policy makers use the models to inform policy, then some benchmarking of which models are trustworthy is needed.
Unless there is some attempt to understand which models have performed well (with respect to the past), or whether SAGE has performed well (with respect to the past), then there is no way of evaluating the reliability of their current advice or their predictions.
I also am not one who is interested in the blame game, here. I think it is absolutely inevitable that scientists predicting the behaviour of a still largely unknown disease will make some mistakes.
I do think that the concept of "credible interval" needs serious re-consideration, and this goes to your point about benchmarking of models. We must remember, of course, that epidemiologists are not actually proper mathematicians and therefore give them a bit of a break...
(I do think that SAGE has done okay -- based only on my impression -- since they seemed to get the order of magnitude of the predictions about right. They haven't done well in convincing the government to take timely action for the 2nd wave, but I think this is partly due to motivated reasoners muddying the waters. *Their* culpability will probably never be accounted for.)
--AS3 -
I am sure some duplicitous types sit around stroking a cat and admiring another's duplicity, but in my experience, a lot of devious people get very angry with others behaving in the same way.kle4 said:
They are't furious. They do it themselves enough to not be able to be genuinely mad if it did happen without consent, Yes Minister taught us this decades ago and it just insults us. That they don't bother to investigate other leaks proves they do it, so this is just pathetic.Scott_xP said:0 -
It's not about holding out it's about making the correct policy moves. I've been through this about a thousand times on here, it is possible to prevent people who have the virus from interacting with those that don't. Even now we can do it with 550k cases in the country. Whether isolation is done in hotels, by GPS tracking or by random daily door knocks (or a combination) that's the key to resolving this, making sure people who have the virus stay away from people who don't. Lockdown only does this whole lockdown is on and not very well either.kle4 said:
The momentum toward lockdown was enormous before deaths ramped up, so whether they think it the best option or not I don't think the government can hold out.MaxPB said:Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.
1 -
Predicting the behaviour of a still largely unknown disease is indeed difficult. But so is predicting the behaviour of people in a largely unknown set of circumstances. I have some sympathy with the scientists. How on earth can they model the extent to which people follow the hand/face/space mantra? Or mask wearing? Or, most importantly, the proportion of infected people who will self-isolate when infected? It seems to me that it is virtually impossible to model accurately the human element of the virus spread, so it's no surprise that models contain a significant degree of guesswork.YBarddCwsc said:Things I'd like to see in this impossible world
1. How well have the SAGE estimates of the growth rate of the epidemic matched up to reality? We now have many weeks of calculations from SAGE of the daily & weekly growth rate. When integrated over time, how do these predictions actually compare against cases reported? I understand the growth in testing makes this a little more difficult, but this is still not a hard calculation to do.
(I am not one of those who think SAGE has done well, but this is more based on overall impression that their pronouncements lack 'scientific' common sense rather than hard analysis).
2. How well have the many model predictions from Ferguson, from King's College, from Washington, and so on, fared when matched with the data. I understand this is a bit harder, as the politicians and policy models respond to the models, so all scenarios are liable to being falsified by events in one way or another. Also, I think the main aim of the models is understanding -- rather than predictions -- but if policy makers use the models to inform policy, then some benchmarking of which models are trustworthy is needed.
Unless there is some attempt to understand which models have performed well (with respect to the past), or whether SAGE has performed well (with respect to the past), then there is no way of evaluating the reliability of their current advice or their predictions.
I also am not one who is interested in the blame game, here. I think it is absolutely inevitable that scientists predicting the behaviour of a still largely unknown disease will make some mistakes.3 -
"Something must be done" even if it is useless or counter-productive.MaxPB said:Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.
0 -
I've also noticed they have been supplying some cross tabs, not really informative but better than the useless PowerPoint graphs they only gave previously (they are not alone with that however).not_on_fire said:I see 538 and Trafalgar have come to an “arrangement”.
The crosstabs don't overly help them however, some trying to show 30% of Dems voting for trump and 25% Blacks also voting Trump etc.... Still maybe they have tapped into something no-one else at all has seen, though I suspect not.0 -
-
So extrapolating from previous weeks on Worldometer I predicted on here for cases in America 93K for Thurs and 100K for Friday. I looked at it because I thought the 100K landmark looked likely and might be a critical landmark just before the election.
Actual numbers were 91.8K and 101.4K.
To be honest it wasn't difficult because the trend for Thurs and Fri was pretty consistent.
Sat figure is usually quite high but always below Thurs and Fri. It is also less consistent sometimes being close to Fri figure, sometimes considerably less and obviously subsequent days will be down before the election being Sun - Tues.
It will be interesting to see what Sat will be and how newsworthy the huge Thur and Fri jumps are and the breaking of the 100K with Trump still claiming it is getting better.0 -
To be fair to him (why???) it is against his natural instincts. It's not quite everyone for themselves win his worldview, but the fewer controls, moral or otherwise, the better..Scott_xP said:
BoZo thinks the public are against lockdown, which is why he is against lockdownkle4 said:The public have never been against lockdown and they must know that so I cannot think that's the reason.
0 -
-
2
-
The recent acceleration of new cases globally is quite alarming.kjh said:So extrapolating from previous weeks on Worldometer I predicted on here for cases in America 93K for Thurs and 100K for Friday. I looked at it because I thought the 100K landmark looked likely and might be a critical landmark just before the election.
Actual numbers were 91.8K and 101.4K.
To be honest it wasn't difficult because the trend for Thurs and Fri was pretty consistent.
Sat figure is usually quite high but always below Thurs and Fri. It is also less consistent sometimes being close to Fri figure, sometimes considerably less and obviously subsequent days will be down before the election being Sun - Tues.
It will be interesting to see what Sat will be and how newsworthy the huge Thur and Fri jumps are and the breaking of the 100K with Trump still claiming it is getting better.
0 -
Seems to me there's no trust left to damage. Even Conservatives on here are sick of Johnson. Is there anyone left in the bunker other than HYUFD?Scott_xP said:Apparently said without irony...
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/13224804176231260180 -
Yes and deaths as % also increasing as health services get overwhelmedwilliamglenn said:
The recent acceleration of new cases globally is quite alarming.kjh said:So extrapolating from previous weeks on Worldometer I predicted on here for cases in America 93K for Thurs and 100K for Friday. I looked at it because I thought the 100K landmark looked likely and might be a critical landmark just before the election.
Actual numbers were 91.8K and 101.4K.
To be honest it wasn't difficult because the trend for Thurs and Fri was pretty consistent.
Sat figure is usually quite high but always below Thurs and Fri. It is also less consistent sometimes being close to Fri figure, sometimes considerably less and obviously subsequent days will be down before the election being Sun - Tues.
It will be interesting to see what Sat will be and how newsworthy the huge Thur and Fri jumps are and the breaking of the 100K with Trump still claiming it is getting better.0 -
And so it gets another step closer.
The economic and social collapse that these calamitous policy decisions are heading us towards.
In the end, we cannot afford another lockdown. We could not afford the first one. Hence,this lock down will be without furlough. We can only imagine how much that is going to hammer this country and its people.
The conservatives are heading for complete oblivion. Total. Utter.0 -
Boris Johnson appears to be the exception to Von Hammerstein's observation about clever but lazy officers suitability for promotion to higher ranks.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_intelligent_and_lazy_people_qualify_for_highest_leadership_positions0 -
5
-
Some good news. Covid 19 mortality has dropped significantly in second wave ICU patients. The rest of the twitter thread is worth a look too. The data is from the UK ICU audit group.
https://twitter.com/john_actuary/status/1322473252950855681?s=190 -
What it is presumably meant to solve is a crisis in the NHS once again as the number of hospitalisations increases sharply and wards get close to capacity. For me, this is something that lockdowns are justified for, as an emergency break when we are being overwhelmed. Looking at the charts from yesterday that must be imminent.MaxPB said:Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.
The government is trying to mitigate economic damage within that parameter. Acknowledging that further restrictions are likely or inevitable causes damage of itself and depresses activity. I am not at all surprised or even disappointed that Ministers say that they have no plans to do things until they have to. I don't really see an alternative.
This is all enormously frustrating and difficult but I think your criticism of the government is way overdone.0 -
By Jove I think we've got it.Alistair said:Regarding the Coronavirus
https://twitter.com/alistairhann/status/1322470096745488387?s=194 -
Well, things are going absolutely swimmingly:-
1. A second wave likely more deadly than the first.
2. An economic recession, if we’re lucky, a depression if not.
3. The Oompa Loompa re-elected next week (I very much fear) or him finagling his way out of defeat.
4. An exit from a Brexit transition into God knows what, for which few are prepared.
5. Islamist nutters slaughtering the innocent.
Have I missed anything?
Is there any joy to be had anywhere?0 -
Another silver lining, the increase in cases globally should accelerate vaccine trials...0
-
Notwithstanding the point made about irony, but presumably the people at the meeting can't have been sworn to secrecy? I mean, you call the Chancellor to a meeting and tell him, almost out of the blue, that you are going to be abandoning the "Tier" system, and moving to a month long lockdown from next Wednesday and he's got to revise his economic plans and business assistance to deal with it.Scott_xP said:Apparently said without irony...
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1322480417623126018
Do you not think he might need to tell a few people in the Treasury...?0 -
I don't think Texas can be called based on relative turnout - Democrats are fighting much harder than in the past for votes in Trumpy rural areas. The question that will swing Texas is whether the increase in turnout in those areas is proportional to past vote, or contains more new Democrat votes than new Republican votes.Gallowgate said:Reposting this from last night. Relative turnout in the most Dem friendly Texas counties. Not sure how informative it is but it is fascinating. Important to note Travis, Bexar, and Harris are now above the state average. Could be important for Sleepy Joe.
0 -
Just got my winter fuel payment. Didn't realise last year that when one is over 80 it goes up. Cheered me up. A little, anyway.Cyclefree said:Well, things are going absolutely swimmingly:-
1. A second wave likely more deadly than the first.
2. An economic recession, if we’re lucky, a depression if not.
3. The Oompa Loompa re-elected next week (I very much fear) or him finagling his way out of defeat.
4. An exit from a Brexit transition into God knows what, for which few are prepared.
5. Islamist nutters slaughtering the innocent.
Have I missed anything?
Is there any joy to be had anywhere?0 -
Niall Stanage of "The Hill" assesses Trump potential narrow path to re-election :
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/523680-the-memo-trump-retains-narrow-path-to-victory0 -
You missed additional misery. Rugby Union below Championship level has been cancelled by the RFU for the rest of the season with naff help so far being offered to clubs(AFAIK). Typical RFU planning. Do first, think later and then do nothing to help smaller clubs or in fact hinder them. Its been that way ever since professionalism. Where the F does the RFU think International players come from?Cyclefree said:Well, things are going absolutely swimmingly:-
1. A second wave likely more deadly than the first.
2. An economic recession, if we’re lucky, a depression if not.
3. The Oompa Loompa re-elected next week (I very much fear) or him finagling his way out of defeat.
4. An exit from a Brexit transition into God knows what, for which few are prepared.
5. Islamist nutters slaughtering the innocent.
Have I missed anything?
Is there any joy to be had anywhere?0 -
That's about the strength of it.Cyclefree said:Well, things are going absolutely swimmingly:-
1. A second wave likely more deadly than the first.
2. An economic recession, if we’re lucky, a depression if not.
3. The Oompa Loompa re-elected next week (I very much fear) or him finagling his way out of defeat.
4. An exit from a Brexit transition into God knows what, for which few are prepared.
5. Islamist nutters slaughtering the innocent.
Have I missed anything?
Is there any joy to be had anywhere?
Strictly's on tonight, though.1 -
-
Seven year old me just assumed that we must have a General Election every 6 months.IanB2 said:
Really I should watch that, as it is the first one that registered with me and I did actually get up early to watch the results (AIR they didnt broadcast all night in those days)Casino_Royale said:What's fascinating about GE1974 (apart from the timewarp technology, post industrial decay, and terrible fashion) is how contemporary some of the debates sound.
There's a lot on Scottish nationalism and on tactical voting and possible electoral reform.
Focus groups seem much more respectful to one another though.1 -
-
The government has had months to solve the actual problem of people who have the virus interacting with people who don't. It has done nothing to solve it and believes the only way to prevent that is with a lockdown, either local or national. The government has had months to build a testing and tracking system that can seek out the virus, yet we're still waiting for people to become symptomatic and book a test. We're still allowing people to self certify their isolation and quarantine.DavidL said:
What it is presumably meant to solve is a crisis in the NHS once again as the number of hospitalisations increases sharply and wards get close to capacity. For me, this is something that lockdowns are justified for, as an emergency break when we are being overwhelmed. Looking at the charts from yesterday that must be imminent.MaxPB said:Once again, nobody has explained what lockdown 2 is going to solve. We're run by a government of c***s. Absolutely fucking clueless and they're going to destroy what's left of the economy and we will be back where we are today a few weeks after it ends or in a more realistic scenario it doesn't end in 4 weeks, it ends in April because the government haven't got a clue.
The government is trying to mitigate economic damage within that parameter. Acknowledging that further restrictions are likely or inevitable causes damage of itself and depresses activity. I am not at all surprised or even disappointed that Ministers say that they have no plans to do things until they have to. I don't really see an alternative.
This is all enormously frustrating and difficult but I think your criticism of the government is way overdone.
The government has had enough time to resolve these issues and honestly, I don't give a fuck about how European countries have also failed. We shouldn't be aiming to be just as bad as everyone else.1 -
I think most people are "for" lockdown - at least when asked.OldKingCole said:
To be fair to him (why???) it is against his natural instincts. It's not quite everyone for themselves win his worldview, but the fewer controls, moral or otherwise, the better..Scott_xP said:
BoZo thinks the public are against lockdown, which is why he is against lockdownkle4 said:The public have never been against lockdown and they must know that so I cannot think that's the reason.
However, most of them want to go on a holiday, meet friends at the pub, family party etc.
So it's Lockdown Supermax II - apart from "I need to do what I want"2 -
F1: concise pre-qualifying ramble, no tip but some driver news:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/10/imola-pre-qualifying-2020.html0 -
0
-
-
