Pointed to that this morning. I've little doubt that Max will share my dismay at the apparent complete lack of plans to do anything to improve the rate of those found infected actually isolating. The boffins interviewed on the radio this morning were all saying they 'hoped' that people would isolate. The reality is that maybe a third of those testing positive will actually do so, unless incentives and practical help to do so are much improved.
I rather think that this is the trial to get good data on this. The data heard of so far (via a friend working on the academic side), is the compliance is low, not just because of work etc, but people not being prepared to actually do the isolation.
You may recall a poster here who, on being presented with Max's 500-a-week-plus-room-service-in-a-decent-hotel plan, said he wouldn't do it. Because he preferred to be at home....
The Slovakian one, apparently includes a certificate that you have a negative. Complete with serious issues (legal) if you are found out and about without such a certificate...
Positive and negative incentives are both required. Any effective program would make a massive difference, though.
They should be using the trial to test out ideas on that, rather than hoping for the best.
So we've actually modelled isolation rates and it's effect on the R. Our current 20% isolation was used as a base and the assumption is that 60% of people who test positive are symptomatic and 40% are asymptomatic. An isolation rate of:
30% makes no difference 40% makes no difference 50% R drops by 0.05 60% R drops by 0.1 70% R drops by 0.25 80% R drops by 0.4 90% R drops by 0.6 100% R drops by 0.9
These are modelled rates assuming the same contact tracing and testing based on symptomatic people asking for tests and a low hit rate for contact tracing.
These are numbers for England where there is good and reliable data quality, but I don't see why it would be different elsewhere and of course in parts where the R is significantly higher than 1 the drop would be larger, these numbers are modelled around an England R of 1.2 which was derived from the hospital admission figures.
Obviously the numbers are based on a model written by non-experts in epidemiology, though I'm a chemistry graduate, one of our number is a physics graduate, another is a maths graduate and we had input from a few other people too. We are all, however, fairly well versed in modern modelling methods.
I'd be very surprised if the government hasn't done a similar anlysis and my bet is that they've seen the numbers and realised that the major gains in R are only made at 70%+ isolation rates which I bet all do the scientists have said is impossible to achieve so they just don't bother.
Track and trace is problematic, as you're asking contacts, who might or might not be infectious, to isolate. You're also likely missing a large number of potential contacts.
A 70% isolation rate ought to be very easy to reach if you're doing a mass antigen testing exercise. I would have thought 90%+ ought to be the target. Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
We're just not trying.
(edit) And kudos for producing those numbers. Very interesting.
One of the great skills in opposition is to work out what the government is going to do, and then call for it first. And you don’t have to get out of bed very early to get ahead of this government. Simply making a cup of coffee in your dressing gown gives you a strategic advantage.
Johnson was on his feet for two and a quarter hours, and almost none of the Tory MPs who asked him questions offered wholehearted support to their leader.
The prime minister made little effort to take on the critics behind him. This may have been an effort to be conciliatory, but it left the impression that he felt more at the mercy of events than their master. “It is only 28 days,” he said at one point.
A prime minister with a majority of 80 is disappearing before our eyes, unable to defend his appointees, his decisions or his policies, despised by his own side and opposition alike. It is all so terribly difficult, being in government. If only someone had warned him.
Once Brexit is secured, Biden is elected and a vaccine is imminent then Boris has outlived his usefulness. The data is now starting to show him to be a liability with his GE2019 voters too.
Then ditching him becomes the logical thing to do with the next big challenge - IndyRef2 - where him going may help save the Union.
I'm thinking someone moderate who can build bridges with the US and EU, who's largely untainted by Brexit, who can govern competently for the whole Union, who understands health and who will not scare the horses.
I'm thinking Hunt.
Hunt has zero chance, if Boris goes the membership will vote for Rishi Sunak
Would Hunt be able to make the final two this time? The final MP round in 2019 was Johnson 160, Hunt 77, Gove 75. The party in Parliament has swung quite a bit in the Brexit-populist direction since then.
I guess it comes down to the vibes when (if?) Johnson goes. Can the cabinet successfully use Johnson as a scapegoat, or will they be discredited as well?
Rishi feels a bit like John Major in 1990 -rather bland and a safe pair of hands....the Conservative party may be just looking for that but I have a feeling they wont.
Andrew Rosindell is on record saying it's NEVER too early to start wearing a poppy. Leadership material.
Isn’t it in Debretts it can’t be before November? Any popping wearing before November is wrong?
A possible formula: Armistice day is of course always 11th November. Remembrance Sunday is always one of the seven days from 8th-14 November with 11th in the middle. Wear the poppy for all or some of those seven days and no-one will confuse you with a less bright Tory MP or a member of the BNP.
Once Brexit is secured, Biden is elected and a vaccine is imminent then Boris has outlived his usefulness. The data is now starting to show him to be a liability with his GE2019 voters too.
Then ditching him becomes the logical thing to do with the next big challenge - IndyRef2 - where him going may help save the Union.
I'm thinking someone moderate who can build bridges with the US and EU, who's largely untainted by Brexit, who can govern competently for the whole Union, who understands health and who will not scare the horses.
I'm thinking Hunt.
That would require the Tories to effectively admit that they made massive mistake in electing Johnson. Now obviously everyone can see they made a mistake, but do political types like admitting mistakes?
If there is one thing the Tories are good at it is replacing leaders when they have outlived their usefulness.
They don´t seem to be very good at it at the moment.
He still is useful...they can pin brexit deal and covid response on him.
And midterm elections next May.
And he's still miles better than May.
At what?
May was a poor PM, Boris is poorer and a great deal more dangerous.
At least May looked like a Prime Minister and acted like one. She also had a grasp of science. I suspect she would have been very good in this pandemic. Johnson is just as hopeless as it is possible to be. Who but the most brexity of brexiteers could see any virtue in him at all?
Once Brexit is secured, Biden is elected and a vaccine is imminent then Boris has outlived his usefulness. The data is now starting to show him to be a liability with his GE2019 voters too.
Then ditching him becomes the logical thing to do with the next big challenge - IndyRef2 - where him going may help save the Union.
I'm thinking someone moderate who can build bridges with the US and EU, who's largely untainted by Brexit, who can govern competently for the whole Union, who understands health and who will not scare the horses.
I'm thinking Hunt.
That would require the Tories to effectively admit that they made massive mistake in electing Johnson. Now obviously everyone can see they made a mistake, but do political types like admitting mistakes?
If there is one thing the Tories are good at it is replacing leaders when they have outlived their usefulness.
They don´t seem to be very good at it at the moment.
He still is useful...they can pin brexit deal and covid response on him.
And midterm elections next May.
And he's still miles better than May.
At what?
May was a poor PM, Boris is poorer and a great deal more dangerous.
I agree with your first statement but couldn't disagree more with the rest.
You can argue with the middle bit, but the end isn't really contestable - despite May's many failings she had the right, even somewhat old fashioned, values for public service. You only have to look at what motivates the clown to see how dangerous this could be.
I do disagree. I don't respect her values she was far too authoritarian for my taste. People talk about her values like they were good but I don't respect the values of someone who sends vans into minority areas saying GO HOME. That is Trumpian values not mine. I also don't respect someone who as party leader used the word Libertarian as a derogative.
Boris's values are much more in keeping with mine and I'm glad we don't have an authoritarian in Downing Street right now. During a crisis like this entrusting authoritarian powers as has been done with someone who would rather not have or use them is far less dangerous than entrusting them with someone who was always eager to be more authoritaian than they could get away with normally.
That's a fair point.
It does rather depend on what dangers you have in mind
One of the great skills in opposition is to work out what the government is going to do, and then call for it first. And you don’t have to get out of bed very early to get ahead of this government. Simply making a cup of coffee in your dressing gown gives you a strategic advantage.
Johnson was on his feet for two and a quarter hours, and almost none of the Tory MPs who asked him questions offered wholehearted support to their leader.
The prime minister made little effort to take on the critics behind him. This may have been an effort to be conciliatory, but it left the impression that he felt more at the mercy of events than their master. “It is only 28 days,” he said at one point.
A prime minister with a majority of 80 is disappearing before our eyes, unable to defend his appointees, his decisions or his policies, despised by his own side and opposition alike. It is all so terribly difficult, being in government. If only someone had warned him.
Once Brexit is secured, Biden is elected and a vaccine is imminent then Boris has outlived his usefulness. The data is now starting to show him to be a liability with his GE2019 voters too.
Then ditching him becomes the logical thing to do with the next big challenge - IndyRef2 - where him going may help save the Union.
I'm thinking someone moderate who can build bridges with the US and EU, who's largely untainted by Brexit, who can govern competently for the whole Union, who understands health and who will not scare the horses.
I'm thinking Hunt.
Hunt has zero chance, if Boris goes the membership will vote for Rishi Sunak
Would Hunt be able to make the final two this time? The final MP round in 2019 was Johnson 160, Hunt 77, Gove 75. The party in Parliament has swung quite a bit in the Brexit-populist direction since then.
I guess it comes down to the vibes when (if?) Johnson goes. Can the cabinet successfully use Johnson as a scapegoat, or will they be discredited as well?
Rishi feels a bit like John Major in 1990 -rather bland and a safe pair of hands....the Conservative party may be just looking for that but I have a feeling they wont.
Andrew Rosindell is on record saying it's NEVER too early to start wearing a poppy. Leadership material.
Isn’t it in Debretts it can’t be before November? Any popping wearing before November is wrong?
A possible formula: Armistice day is of course always 11th November. Remembrance Sunday is always one of the seven days from 8th-14 November with 11th in the middle. Wear the poppy for all or some of those seven days and no-one will confuse you with a less bright Tory MP or a member of the BNP.
Of course you're not really a patriot unless you change your PB avatar to a poppy.
While we wait on the US, I just want to praise Tim Farron. He has been very active fighting for the Lake District and its hospitality sector.
I wrote to him last night about this new rule about pubs not being able to sell takeaway alcohol and got a substantive reply this morning and confirmation that he’s written to the PM about it.
Meanwhile let’s see if Trudi Harrison, the MP in whose constituency we live, will respond. I doubt it - she is Boris’s PPS after all. Nice lady. But she’s been utterly feeble these past few months.
Pointed to that this morning. I've little doubt that Max will share my dismay at the apparent complete lack of plans to do anything to improve the rate of those found infected actually isolating. The boffins interviewed on the radio this morning were all saying they 'hoped' that people would isolate. The reality is that maybe a third of those testing positive will actually do so, unless incentives and practical help to do so are much improved.
I rather think that this is the trial to get good data on this. The data heard of so far (via a friend working on the academic side), is the compliance is low, not just because of work etc, but people not being prepared to actually do the isolation.
You may recall a poster here who, on being presented with Max's 500-a-week-plus-room-service-in-a-decent-hotel plan, said he wouldn't do it. Because he preferred to be at home....
The Slovakian one, apparently includes a certificate that you have a negative. Complete with serious issues (legal) if you are found out and about without such a certificate...
Positive and negative incentives are both required. Any effective program would make a massive difference, though.
They should be using the trial to test out ideas on that, rather than hoping for the best.
So we've actually modelled isolation rates and it's effect on the R. Our current 20% isolation was used as a base and the assumption is that 60% of people who test positive are symptomatic and 40% are asymptomatic. An isolation rate of:
30% makes no difference 40% makes no difference 50% R drops by 0.05 60% R drops by 0.1 70% R drops by 0.25 80% R drops by 0.4 90% R drops by 0.6 100% R drops by 0.9
These are modelled rates assuming the same contact tracing and testing based on symptomatic people asking for tests and a low hit rate for contact tracing.
These are numbers for England where there is good and reliable data quality, but I don't see why it would be different elsewhere and of course in parts where the R is significantly higher than 1 the drop would be larger, these numbers are modelled around an England R of 1.2 which was derived from the hospital admission figures.
Obviously the numbers are based on a model written by non-experts in epidemiology, though I'm a chemistry graduate, one of our number is a physics graduate, another is a maths graduate and we had input from a few other people too. We are all, however, fairly well versed in modern modelling methods.
I'd be very surprised if the government hasn't done a similar anlysis and my bet is that they've seen the numbers and realised that the major gains in R are only made at 70%+ isolation rates which I bet all do the scientists have said is impossible to achieve so they just don't bother.
Track and trace is problematic, as you're asking contacts, who might or might not be infectious, to isolate. You're also likely missing a large number of potential contacts.
A 70% isolation rate ought to be very easy to reach if you're doing a mass antigen testing exercise. I would have thought 90%+ ought to be the target. Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
We're just not trying.
(edit) And kudos for producing those numbers. Very interesting.
Yes, that's the whole problem with our tracing system. Asking people to stay in for 14 days because someone they met had the virus isn't sustainable. I don't understand why we haven't implement priority testing and overnight results for people contacted by track and trace teams, door knocking with swabs is the best way to tackle it. Don't give people the option of not being tested or not picking up the phone.
But yes, I agree with you on the ease of isolation with city or area based testing. The issue is that cities and regions don't have hard borders like nation states. Slovakia can do this exercise and effectively shut it's borders with 14 day hotel based quarantine requirements for all incoming people like Australia and New Zealand. Liverpool can't do that so ultimately these strategies only work to stop outbreaks, not as a solution for reducing transmission.
Once Brexit is secured, Biden is elected and a vaccine is imminent then Boris has outlived his usefulness. The data is now starting to show him to be a liability with his GE2019 voters too.
Then ditching him becomes the logical thing to do with the next big challenge - IndyRef2 - where him going may help save the Union.
I'm thinking someone moderate who can build bridges with the US and EU, who's largely untainted by Brexit, who can govern competently for the whole Union, who understands health and who will not scare the horses.
I'm thinking Hunt.
That would require the Tories to effectively admit that they made massive mistake in electing Johnson. Now obviously everyone can see they made a mistake, but do political types like admitting mistakes?
If there is one thing the Tories are good at it is replacing leaders when they have outlived their usefulness.
They don´t seem to be very good at it at the moment.
He still is useful...they can pin brexit deal and covid response on him.
And midterm elections next May.
And he's still miles better than May.
At what?
May was a poor PM, Boris is poorer and a great deal more dangerous.
At least May looked like a Prime Minister and acted like one. She also had a grasp of science. I suspect she would have been very good in this pandemic. Johnson is just as hopeless as it is possible to be. Who but the most brexity of brexiteers could see any virtue in him at all?
You seem to forget that one of Mays biggest flaws was an inability to ever make a decision about anything. Boris slowness to lockdown is from it being against one of his core beliefs, May would have had meeting about meetings about meetings, without ever commiting to a decision. I doubt she would have been much better.
Of recent leaders, Dave was the man for the job. By all accounts from the civil service, always ontop of the red box, quick to digest info and make a decision, while also able to delegate. For all the claims of loving to chillax, nobody ever claimed he didn't get what was required done (unlike Brown, where the backlog piled up).
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Mark Mardell in his final WATO broadcast did a section on Trump's rally music choices, coming to the conclusion that either he's an irony-free zone, or he gets irony by the bucketload......who else could get Trumpsters to dance along to not one, but two, gay anthems?
What happens if London Bridge falls down in the next four weeks?
huh?
Code for Her Majesty passing away i think.
It would never happen in an ideal world but I wonder if next year she should effectively retire/abdicate and hand over to Charles to be coronated in 2022.
She's 95. She's done enough - more than anyone ever has. And I think she deserves to enjoy the last few years of her life with her husband in peace.
I think it's possible that being Queen is so much part of her identity that it would be cruel to take that away from her out of a misplaced sense of allowing her to retire.
I hope that she feels free to make the choice without being pressured one way or the other.
Pointed to that this morning. I've little doubt that Max will share my dismay at the apparent complete lack of plans to do anything to improve the rate of those found infected actually isolating. The boffins interviewed on the radio this morning were all saying they 'hoped' that people would isolate. The reality is that maybe a third of those testing positive will actually do so, unless incentives and practical help to do so are much improved.
I rather think that this is the trial to get good data on this. The data heard of so far (via a friend working on the academic side), is the compliance is low, not just because of work etc, but people not being prepared to actually do the isolation.
You may recall a poster here who, on being presented with Max's 500-a-week-plus-room-service-in-a-decent-hotel plan, said he wouldn't do it. Because he preferred to be at home....
The Slovakian one, apparently includes a certificate that you have a negative. Complete with serious issues (legal) if you are found out and about without such a certificate...
Positive and negative incentives are both required. Any effective program would make a massive difference, though.
They should be using the trial to test out ideas on that, rather than hoping for the best.
So we've actually modelled isolation rates and it's effect on the R. Our current 20% isolation was used as a base and the assumption is that 60% of people who test positive are symptomatic and 40% are asymptomatic. An isolation rate of:
30% makes no difference 40% makes no difference 50% R drops by 0.05 60% R drops by 0.1 70% R drops by 0.25 80% R drops by 0.4 90% R drops by 0.6 100% R drops by 0.9
These are modelled rates assuming the same contact tracing and testing based on symptomatic people asking for tests and a low hit rate for contact tracing.
These are numbers for England where there is good and reliable data quality, but I don't see why it would be different elsewhere and of course in parts where the R is significantly higher than 1 the drop would be larger, these numbers are modelled around an England R of 1.2 which was derived from the hospital admission figures.
Obviously the numbers are based on a model written by non-experts in epidemiology, though I'm a chemistry graduate, one of our number is a physics graduate, another is a maths graduate and we had input from a few other people too. We are all, however, fairly well versed in modern modelling methods.
I'd be very surprised if the government hasn't done a similar anlysis and my bet is that they've seen the numbers and realised that the major gains in R are only made at 70%+ isolation rates which I bet all do the scientists have said is impossible to achieve so they just don't bother.
If we'd dropped R by 0.1 between mid August and now, we'd be in a massively better position, as we'd have had 18 infection cycles at the lower multiple.
I've said this before, but have you hunted out the original paper that stated 80-90% non compliance. It was very aggressive in determining that, for instance, not getting a test if you had any cough or temperature for which there was a self-evident alternative cause, counted as a testing non compliance. They explicitly stated pretty much in those words. Isolation had to be a full 14 days to count, so if test and trace took a couple of days, I read that as not counting.
The truth may be that we are removing far more than 20% of potential infectious contacts by isolation even where those isolations are not absolute, and a plan to improved practical and easily accessible support for those isolating (e.g. a 111 option to connect to locally led services?) wouldaje a difference. I think we really don't know here.
Once Brexit is secured, Biden is elected and a vaccine is imminent then Boris has outlived his usefulness. The data is now starting to show him to be a liability with his GE2019 voters too.
Then ditching him becomes the logical thing to do with the next big challenge - IndyRef2 - where him going may help save the Union.
I'm thinking someone moderate who can build bridges with the US and EU, who's largely untainted by Brexit, who can govern competently for the whole Union, who understands health and who will not scare the horses.
I'm thinking Hunt.
That would require the Tories to effectively admit that they made massive mistake in electing Johnson. Now obviously everyone can see they made a mistake, but do political types like admitting mistakes?
If there is one thing the Tories are good at it is replacing leaders when they have outlived their usefulness.
They don´t seem to be very good at it at the moment.
He still is useful...they can pin brexit deal and covid response on him.
And midterm elections next May.
And he's still miles better than May.
At what?
May was a poor PM, Boris is poorer and a great deal more dangerous.
I agree with your first statement but couldn't disagree more with the rest.
You can argue with the middle bit, but the end isn't really contestable - despite May's many failings she had the right, even somewhat old fashioned, values for public service. You only have to look at what motivates the clown to see how dangerous this could be.
I do disagree. I don't respect her values she was far too authoritarian for my taste. People talk about her values like they were good but I don't respect the values of someone who sends vans into minority areas saying GO HOME. That is Trumpian values not mine. I also don't respect someone who as party leader used the word Libertarian as a derogative.
Boris's values are much more in keeping with mine and I'm glad we don't have an authoritarian in Downing Street right now. During a crisis like this entrusting authoritarian powers as has been done with someone who would rather not have or use them is far less dangerous than entrusting them with someone who was always eager to be more authoritaian than they could get away with normally.
That's a fair point.
It does rather depend on what dangers you have in mind
Are we all enjoying the last vestiges of hope before we settle down to 8 more years of Trump?
Followed by 32 more of Don Jnr.?
Could be worse, could be Eric?
Someone said on here last week that it must be reassuring for the President, that with Don Jnr. around POTUS is not the worst person in the world called Donald Trump.
In the 2018 Pennsylvania Senate elections, Democrats won the vote 53.8% to 45.5% but Republicans got 29 out of 50 senators. In the PA House elections Democrats won the vote 55.0% to 44.4% but Republicans got 110 out of 203 seats.
On the one hand those margins are probably fairly promising for Biden taking Pennsylvania. On the other hand to win by over 8%, with well over 50% of the vote, and the other party gets a majority is shit, I don't know why anyone puts up with it. And this assembly makes election law in Pennsylvania for the presidential election too - which may turn out to be significant.
Contrary to popular wisdom, this time round the silent majority is against Trump. The pollsters haven't quite spotted the extent of this (and nor have the gamblers). There's no great love for Biden, but people are fearful of another 4 years of Trump, and fearful of Covid. Apart from the Trumpsters, most Americans now think he's mad and dangerous and it's time for him to go.
Not saying you're wrong, but if it's there why don't you think the pollsters can see it?
I wonder whether there aren’t in reality a lot of shy Trump voters.
You do have an example of this from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
In the days before Jo Cox's murder, Leave was winning in a good number of the polls. In the days after, the polling momentum swung and most polls showed Remain in the lead.
In hindsight, that wasn't an actual change in opinion but it seemed a few people didn't like their names being associated with what was seen as a repulsive cause (and which many in the public eye criticised vehemently).
Because most of us find Trump repulsive, there is a tendency to assume others will too and that people will not therefore vote for him. We don’t understand why many love him. Nor do we understand that many will vote for him despite disliking him personally.
He has cleverly turned one of the criticisms made of him - that he does not follow conventions - into a strength by telling voters that he is there to serve them (unlike the conventional politicians). Regardless of whether it is true, it is an attractive message. And it may well work.
Contrary to popular wisdom, this time round the silent majority is against Trump. The pollsters haven't quite spotted the extent of this (and nor have the gamblers). There's no great love for Biden, but people are fearful of another 4 years of Trump, and fearful of Covid. Apart from the Trumpsters, most Americans now think he's mad and dangerous and it's time for him to go.
Not saying you're wrong, but if it's there why don't you think the pollsters can see it?
I wonder whether there aren’t in reality a lot of shy Trump voters.
You do have an example of this from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
In the days before Jo Cox's murder, Leave was winning in a good number of the polls. In the days after, the polling momentum swung and most polls showed Remain in the lead.
In hindsight, that wasn't an actual change in opinion but it seemed a few people didn't like their names being associated with what was seen as a repulsive cause (and which many in the public eye criticised vehemently).
Because most of us find Trump repulsive, there is a tendency to assume others will too and that people will not therefore vote for him. We don’t understand why many love him. Nor do we understand that many will vote for him despite disliking him personally.
He has cleverly turned one of the criticisms made of him - that he does not follow conventions - into a strength by telling voters that he is there to serve them (unlike the conventional politicians). Regardless of whether it is true, it is an attractive message. And it may well work.
Sadly agree. Trump is going to win
A brave call! I said something equally arrogant (and wrong) on here in 2008 and it earned me the sobriquet Rogerdamus.
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Trump still got 14% of the LGBT vote in 2016 so a few voted for him
At the Winchester by election I was being chatted up by this guy and was too embarrassed to point out I wasn't interested. Eventually he said 'I'm wasting my time aren't I' to which I replied yes and that I didn't think my wife and kids would approve either.
We got chatting and I asked him why he thought so many gays voted Tory (we are in the days where the Tories were far less tolerant than today). I have to say I felt quite stupid and embarrassed by his reply which was basically being gay is not the be all and end all of being gay. Gays come in all hues of opinion and character just like everyone else eg bright, stupid, selfish, considerate, right wing, left wing, etc, etc. Obvious really.
Fairly confident of a Biden win but margins between close and landslide are small.
Assuming Dems win Wisconsin and Michigan which even RCP have in the blue common by 5 and 6% margins then Biden only needs one of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio or Texas.
Trump needs them all to win, Biden only needs 1 and if gets the lot it's a landslide. The actual result will probably be somewhere in the middle.
I think Biden will pick up PA, AZ, Florida and NC. So my bet is on 335 -203 for Biden.
I see we have had a staggering 50% increase in our vote (Tories and Labour can never claim that from one poll to another) so we should be going back to our constituencies and preparing for government.
Contrary to popular wisdom, this time round the silent majority is against Trump. The pollsters haven't quite spotted the extent of this (and nor have the gamblers). There's no great love for Biden, but people are fearful of another 4 years of Trump, and fearful of Covid. Apart from the Trumpsters, most Americans now think he's mad and dangerous and it's time for him to go.
Not saying you're wrong, but if it's there why don't you think the pollsters can see it?
I wonder whether there aren’t in reality a lot of shy Trump voters.
You do have an example of this from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
In the days before Jo Cox's murder, Leave was winning in a good number of the polls. In the days after, the polling momentum swung and most polls showed Remain in the lead.
In hindsight, that wasn't an actual change in opinion but it seemed a few people didn't like their names being associated with what was seen as a repulsive cause (and which many in the public eye criticised vehemently).
Because most of us find Trump repulsive, there is a tendency to assume others will too and that people will not therefore vote for him. We don’t understand why many love him. Nor do we understand that many will vote for him despite disliking him personally.
He has cleverly turned one of the criticisms made of him - that he does not follow conventions - into a strength by telling voters that he is there to serve them (unlike the conventional politicians). Regardless of whether it is true, it is an attractive message. And it may well work.
Sadly agree. Trump is going to win
A brave call! I said something equally arrogant (and wrong) on here in 2008 and it earned me the sobriquet Rogerdamus.
I hope Trump loses. I would like to think that the UK (as usual) follows the US and the fall of a populist buffoon over there presages the fall of our own buffoon and his vile coterie of lickspittles.
Logically Biden was always the better fit there . Hillary Clinton was seen as to use that now often used term . Metropolitan elite , out of touch with the Dems original base .
Of all the candidates on offer during the primaries it’s hard to find anyone else that would have had a better chance of taking back those states .
Biden has run a good campaign and stayed on the same message throughout , few gaffes and I’m not sure how much more he could have done .
And yet, Biden is doing 3.7% worse in Pennsylvania (if you're counting it) than nationally in the current 538 polling averages. Clinton did 2.8% worse in Pennsylvania than nationally.
When the grand history of Brexit is written, and guilty are listed, I do not expect to see Obama's name near the top of the list
A LOT of people were pissed off by Obama's intervention.
They were the sort of people I doubt you ever come into contact with, or opinions you ever hear.
Were any of them the same people who were perfectly comfortable with Obama's intervention on Scottish indy?
One day you should chip in with your thoughts on the big constitutional questions in Scotland. You never bring them up and, when you, do your attidude is frustratingly on the fence.
When the grand history of Brexit is written, and guilty are listed, I do not expect to see Obama's name near the top of the list
A LOT of people were pissed off by Obama's intervention.
They were the sort of people I doubt you ever come into contact with, or opinions you ever hear.
Were any of them the same people who were perfectly comfortable with Obama's intervention on Scottish indy?
One day you should chip in with your thoughts on the big constitutional questions in Scotland. You never bring them up and, when you, do your attidude is frustratingly on the fence.
Contrary to popular wisdom, this time round the silent majority is against Trump. The pollsters haven't quite spotted the extent of this (and nor have the gamblers). There's no great love for Biden, but people are fearful of another 4 years of Trump, and fearful of Covid. Apart from the Trumpsters, most Americans now think he's mad and dangerous and it's time for him to go.
Not saying you're wrong, but if it's there why don't you think the pollsters can see it?
I wonder whether there aren’t in reality a lot of shy Trump voters.
You do have an example of this from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
In the days before Jo Cox's murder, Leave was winning in a good number of the polls. In the days after, the polling momentum swung and most polls showed Remain in the lead.
In hindsight, that wasn't an actual change in opinion but it seemed a few people didn't like their names being associated with what was seen as a repulsive cause (and which many in the public eye criticised vehemently).
Because most of us find Trump repulsive, there is a tendency to assume others will too and that people will not therefore vote for him. We don’t understand why many love him. Nor do we understand that many will vote for him despite disliking him personally.
He has cleverly turned one of the criticisms made of him - that he does not follow conventions - into a strength by telling voters that he is there to serve them (unlike the conventional politicians). Regardless of whether it is true, it is an attractive message. And it may well work.
Sadly agree. Trump is going to win
A brave call! I said something equally arrogant (and wrong) on here in 2008 and it earned me the sobriquet Rogerdamus.
I hope Trump loses. I would like to think that the UK (as usual) follows the US and the fall of a populist buffoon over there presages the fall of our own buffoon and his vile coterie of lickspittles.
The image of the Tory Party has changed hugely since Johnson took over. It's lost its managerial core which made it feel safe particularly by those who feared the left. It now looks like bunch of right wing mavericks. Rather like a party run by Farage might look.
When the grand history of Brexit is written, and guilty are listed, I do not expect to see Obama's name near the top of the list
A LOT of people were pissed off by Obama's intervention.
They were the sort of people I doubt you ever come into contact with, or opinions you ever hear.
Were any of them the same people who were perfectly comfortable with Obama's intervention on Scottish indy?
One day you should chip in with your thoughts on the big constitutional questions in Scotland. You never bring them up and, when you, do your attidude is frustratingly on the fence.
Contrary to popular wisdom, this time round the silent majority is against Trump. The pollsters haven't quite spotted the extent of this (and nor have the gamblers). There's no great love for Biden, but people are fearful of another 4 years of Trump, and fearful of Covid. Apart from the Trumpsters, most Americans now think he's mad and dangerous and it's time for him to go.
Not saying you're wrong, but if it's there why don't you think the pollsters can see it?
I wonder whether there aren’t in reality a lot of shy Trump voters.
You do have an example of this from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
In the days before Jo Cox's murder, Leave was winning in a good number of the polls. In the days after, the polling momentum swung and most polls showed Remain in the lead.
In hindsight, that wasn't an actual change in opinion but it seemed a few people didn't like their names being associated with what was seen as a repulsive cause (and which many in the public eye criticised vehemently).
Because most of us find Trump repulsive, there is a tendency to assume others will too and that people will not therefore vote for him. We don’t understand why many love him. Nor do we understand that many will vote for him despite disliking him personally.
He has cleverly turned one of the criticisms made of him - that he does not follow conventions - into a strength by telling voters that he is there to serve them (unlike the conventional politicians). Regardless of whether it is true, it is an attractive message. And it may well work.
Sadly agree. Trump is going to win
A brave call! I said something equally arrogant (and wrong) on here in 2008 and it earned me the sobriquet Rogerdamus.
I hope Trump loses. I would like to think that the UK (as usual) follows the US and the fall of a populist buffoon over there presages the fall of our own buffoon and his vile coterie of lickspittles.
The image of the Tory Party has changed hugely since Johnson took over. It's lost its managerial core which made it feel safe particularly by those who feared the left. It now looks like bunch of right wing mavericks. Rather like a party run by Farage might look.
That is exactly what it has become Roger. The Bluekippers are in charge. It is rather ironic that, after all his efforts, Farage's cohorts are in govt but Farage himself missed out.
Son who doesnt watch live tv has been issued a fine by BBC - any idea how to appeal anyone?
Even better - they fined him because they scared him into getting a license even though he doesnt watch live tv - netflix and amazon only - but he got the license 5 months into living in the place
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
You see no evidence because you dont look for it, that is not the same as no evidence.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
Contrary to popular wisdom, this time round the silent majority is against Trump. The pollsters haven't quite spotted the extent of this (and nor have the gamblers). There's no great love for Biden, but people are fearful of another 4 years of Trump, and fearful of Covid. Apart from the Trumpsters, most Americans now think he's mad and dangerous and it's time for him to go.
Not saying you're wrong, but if it's there why don't you think the pollsters can see it?
I wonder whether there aren’t in reality a lot of shy Trump voters.
You do have an example of this from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
In the days before Jo Cox's murder, Leave was winning in a good number of the polls. In the days after, the polling momentum swung and most polls showed Remain in the lead.
In hindsight, that wasn't an actual change in opinion but it seemed a few people didn't like their names being associated with what was seen as a repulsive cause (and which many in the public eye criticised vehemently).
Because most of us find Trump repulsive, there is a tendency to assume others will too and that people will not therefore vote for him. We don’t understand why many love him. Nor do we understand that many will vote for him despite disliking him personally.
He has cleverly turned one of the criticisms made of him - that he does not follow conventions - into a strength by telling voters that he is there to serve them (unlike the conventional politicians). Regardless of whether it is true, it is an attractive message. And it may well work.
Sadly agree. Trump is going to win
A brave call! I said something equally arrogant (and wrong) on here in 2008 and it earned me the sobriquet Rogerdamus.
Yeah but that was just unlucky. I didn't think Obama would win either and told Mike so, but privately in an email - not first post up on the main thread! His price was obviously too big at 50/1 so I did get on but beat the Clinton machine? No, it was long while before I realised he was going the whole way.
Anyway your consolation is that you are immortalised in one of the best long-running jokes on PB. Long may it last. I have enjoyed it almost as much as the money.
When the grand history of Brexit is written, and guilty are listed, I do not expect to see Obama's name near the top of the list
A LOT of people were pissed off by Obama's intervention.
They were the sort of people I doubt you ever come into contact with, or opinions you ever hear.
Were any of them the same people who were perfectly comfortable with Obama's intervention on Scottish indy?
One day you should chip in with your thoughts on the big constitutional questions in Scotland. You never bring them up and, when you, do your attidude is frustratingly on the fence.
What attidude is that, dude?
Pal not dude surely.
Sorry, I resorted to puerile typo fascism. It's not big and it's not clever.
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
You see no evidence because you dont look for it, that is not the same as no evidence.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
No evidence at all!
Why should sexual orientation be part of the census?
Golf is 60 hectares of outdoor space and about 100 people. Short of visiting Outer Hebrides I am not sure how to be more socially distanced in the UK.
Clearly they’re not trusted to avoid piling into the clubhouse.
That's more than 5 people per hole, if the 19th is excluded. Even out on the course, they're not evenly distributed in 60 hectares. I wouldn't want to spend 1-2 hours with 2-4 people from another household(s) with them upwind of me some of the time, and breathing heavily and talking.
It is slightly odd that the rule applies even to one companion only, but maybe they are just trying to keep things simple (and avoiud the impression of pandering to PBTory golf players as opposed to proletarian footie types?).
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
Who said anything about Trump being anti-gay? Only you.
It's implied by saying it is ironic that his supporters are dancing along to the village people.
It's not complicated.
It wasn't implied. You're simply showing your own prejudice.
I said that LGBT is generally on the "other side" of the "culture war". This is undoubtedly a fact. Trump supporters as a whole dislike the metropolitan liberal "city" attitude to sex, gender, and relationships. They are more conservative and religious.
The Village People have always been associated with this metropolitan liberal attitude. Thus there is irony.
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
You see no evidence because you dont look for it, that is not the same as no evidence.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
No evidence at all!
Why should sexual orientation be part of the census?
While here in the UK....
Census to ask about sexual orientation for the first time
While we wait on the US, I just want to praise Tim Farron. He has been very active fighting for the Lake District and its hospitality sector.
I wrote to him last night about this new rule about pubs not being able to sell takeaway alcohol and got a substantive reply this morning and confirmation that he’s written to the PM about it.
Meanwhile let’s see if Trudi Harrison, the MP in whose constituency we live, will respond. I doubt it - she is Boris’s PPS after all. Nice lady. But she’s been utterly feeble these past few months.
Has anybody provided a rationale for allowing pubs to sell takeaway food but not takeaway alcohol, which is, after all, their core business?
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
In the 2018 Pennsylvania Senate elections, Democrats won the vote 53.8% to 45.5% but Republicans got 29 out of 50 senators. In the PA House elections Democrats won the vote 55.0% to 44.4% but Republicans got 110 out of 203 seats.
On the one hand those margins are probably fairly promising for Biden taking Pennsylvania. On the other hand to win by over 8%, with well over 50% of the vote, and the other party gets a majority is shit, I don't know why anyone puts up with it. And this assembly makes election law in Pennsylvania for the presidential election too - which may turn out to be significant.
In 2015 UKIP got 13% of the national vote and returned one MP.
You think we are in any position to comment adversely on the USA?
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
You see no evidence because you dont look for it, that is not the same as no evidence.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
No evidence at all!
Why should sexual orientation be part of the census?
Guess that depends what the census is used for. The UK one doesnt ask about orientation but does track same sex civil partnerships.
Edit - just seen below it will be in the next one.
RCP final forecast with no tossups Biden 319 Trump 219.
Biden leads by only 0.9% on average in Arizona though, 1.8% in Florida and 2.6% in Pennsylvania and if Trump won those 3 states he would win the EC 279 to 259 for Biden.
When the grand history of Brexit is written, and guilty are listed, I do not expect to see Obama's name near the top of the list
A LOT of people were pissed off by Obama's intervention.
They were the sort of people I doubt you ever come into contact with, or opinions you ever hear.
Were any of them the same people who were perfectly comfortable with Obama's intervention on Scottish indy?
One day you should chip in with your thoughts on the big constitutional questions in Scotland. You never bring them up and, when you, do your attidude is frustratingly on the fence.
What attidude is that, dude?
I'm struggling to get my hand out of my big bag of Lebowski quotes at the moment.
The ScoTories have been issuing bumf with picvs of Mr Ross in his FIFA shirt - a big no-no (it is not the first case of this kind, a chap in Switzerland got the heave (edit: suspension for 3 months) for somethijng of the kind).
"FIFA has confirmed that they are investigating claims Douglas Ross broke strict neutrality rules by using their logo on Tory party leaflets.
If found guilty of breaching the governing body’s statutes, the part-time professional referee could face a ban from the sport.
FIFA’s rules states that they do not take a position “in matters of politics and religion.”"
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
You see no evidence because you dont look for it, that is not the same as no evidence.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
No evidence at all!
Why should sexual orientation be part of the census?
While here in the UK....
Census to ask about sexual orientation for the first time
Of course. I suppose not so bad on the voluntary question, but I still think it's odd just how much information some people are willing to share about themselves with the government.
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
Pointed to that this morning. I've little doubt that Max will share my dismay at the apparent complete lack of plans to do anything to improve the rate of those found infected actually isolating. The boffins interviewed on the radio this morning were all saying they 'hoped' that people would isolate. The reality is that maybe a third of those testing positive will actually do so, unless incentives and practical help to do so are much improved.
I rather think that this is the trial to get good data on this. The data heard of so far (via a friend working on the academic side), is the compliance is low, not just because of work etc, but people not being prepared to actually do the isolation.
You may recall a poster here who, on being presented with Max's 500-a-week-plus-room-service-in-a-decent-hotel plan, said he wouldn't do it. Because he preferred to be at home....
The Slovakian one, apparently includes a certificate that you have a negative. Complete with serious issues (legal) if you are found out and about without such a certificate...
Positive and negative incentives are both required. Any effective program would make a massive difference, though.
They should be using the trial to test out ideas on that, rather than hoping for the best.
So we've actually modelled isolation rates and it's effect on the R. Our current 20% isolation was used as a base and the assumption is that 60% of people who test positive are symptomatic and 40% are asymptomatic. An isolation rate of:
30% makes no difference 40% makes no difference 50% R drops by 0.05 60% R drops by 0.1 70% R drops by 0.25 80% R drops by 0.4 90% R drops by 0.6 100% R drops by 0.9
These are modelled rates assuming the same contact tracing and testing based on symptomatic people asking for tests and a low hit rate for contact tracing.
These are numbers for England where there is good and reliable data quality, but I don't see why it would be different elsewhere and of course in parts where the R is significantly higher than 1 the drop would be larger, these numbers are modelled around an England R of 1.2 which was derived from the hospital admission figures.
Obviously the numbers are based on a model written by non-experts in epidemiology, though I'm a chemistry graduate, one of our number is a physics graduate, another is a maths graduate and we had input from a few other people too. We are all, however, fairly well versed in modern modelling methods.
I'd be very surprised if the government hasn't done a similar anlysis and my bet is that they've seen the numbers and realised that the major gains in R are only made at 70%+ isolation rates which I bet all do the scientists have said is impossible to achieve so they just don't bother.
If we'd dropped R by 0.1 between mid August and now, we'd be in a massively better position, as we'd have had 18 infection cycles at the lower multiple.
I've said this before, but have you hunted out the original paper that stated 80-90% non compliance. It was very aggressive in determining that, for instance, not getting a test if you had any cough or temperature for which there was a self-evident alternative cause, counted as a testing non compliance. They explicitly stated pretty much in those words. Isolation had to be a full 14 days to count, so if test and trace took a couple of days, I read that as not counting.
The truth may be that we are removing far more than 20% of potential infectious contacts by isolation even where those isolations are not absolute, and a plan to improved practical and easily accessible support for those isolating (e.g. a 111 option to connect to locally led services?) wouldaje a difference. I think we really don't know here.
It's barmy that we have no attempt to measure how many people are isolating.
We have no idea how much we need to improve that. If we did something to try and improve it, we'd have no idea how successful it was.
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
You see no evidence because you dont look for it, that is not the same as no evidence.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
No evidence at all!
Why should sexual orientation be part of the census?
You may be aware that I have been banging on about the massive amount of outstanding mail votes
The US Election Projects site guy Michael Mcdonald says he has been unable to update NY since 23.10.20 and NJ has a massive backlog He reckons 350k and 200k respectively. Still leaves about 27.6 million though
He also says re turnout " I know, a little disappointing we didn't reach 100 million tonight.Tomorrow morning's updates actually will cover today's activity, so they will really be early votes. I'm certain that we broke 100 million today, even if the reports come tomorrow"
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
.
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
Then test all those people with a positive with a PCR, and release them if it comes out negative.
"Release" ... yes
How much do you want to bet that the only way to get 90% isolation involves dragging people off the streets?
I guess those old plans fro interment without trial that Blair was interested in might come in handy.
Now that Boris Johnson has screwed over the Northern Irish I can think of no better way of him showing his love for Northern Ireland by introducing internment in Great Britain for those people who don't self isolate.
Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
Why is it ironic?
Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
You see no evidence because you dont look for it, that is not the same as no evidence.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
No evidence at all!
"Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats "
And opposite sex partners of diplomats too.
"Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census"
Lol how is that anti-gay? It's none of the state's business what your sexual preference is.
"Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites"
I don't think gay people should be shoe-horned into a separate category away from everyone else as the left loves to do. Let them be in the same section as everyone else as equals.
Sounds like Trump was making fun of Pence's views not condoning them, if indeed this exchange actually ever happened. It's yet another of those anonymous quotes attributed to Trump.
What is Dominic Cummings' opinion on Scottish Independence? If he wanted to push people towards it, that's a great way to go about it.
If Dom really is an establishment-despising iconoclast wanting to change the UK permanently, Scottish indy would be the way to go.
Given the attention to Prof Curtice's work on the Cuimreachaid this morning, I am surprised nobody seems to have remarked on Mr Cummings's latest contribution to indyref 2 -
"The results, summarised in the table below, make unfavourable reading for those who are advocating that Scotland should remain part of a UK that is now outside the EU.
First of all, we discover that on balance voters are now somewhat more likely to say that Scotland’s economy would be better (43%) as a result of independence than they are to say that it would be worse (33%), a reversal of the position prior to the 2014 independence referendum. In contrast, voters are more than three times as likely to think that Brexit would leave Britain’s economy worse off (61%) as they are to believe it would be better off (18%)."
Commanding lead in Wales, I guess Drakeford isn't a disaster as many here claimed
At Westminster Starmer is the Labour leader and making gains in Wales relative to Corbyn in 2019, in Cardiff Bay Drakeford is Labour leader and projected to lose seats at the Assembly elections next year compared to what Carwyn Jones got in 2016 on the same poll
Can one of our US experts please educate me a little on this business of US Voter Registration?
I see Registered Voters can be GoP, Dem or Independent. But what difference does that make to the vote cast? How binding is it? If I register under one Party, surely I am not bound to vote for them.
I ask because I see that the GoP has been much more successful than the Dems in getting voter registrations since the election, but is that really significant is all they are doing is enabling voters of all persuasions to cast a vote when the time comes.
Contrary to popular wisdom, this time round the silent majority is against Trump. The pollsters haven't quite spotted the extent of this (and nor have the gamblers). There's no great love for Biden, but people are fearful of another 4 years of Trump, and fearful of Covid. Apart from the Trumpsters, most Americans now think he's mad and dangerous and it's time for him to go.
Not saying you're wrong, but if it's there why don't you think the pollsters can see it?
I wonder whether there aren’t in reality a lot of shy Trump voters.
You do have an example of this from the 2016 Brexit referendum.
In the days before Jo Cox's murder, Leave was winning in a good number of the polls. In the days after, the polling momentum swung and most polls showed Remain in the lead.
In hindsight, that wasn't an actual change in opinion but it seemed a few people didn't like their names being associated with what was seen as a repulsive cause (and which many in the public eye criticised vehemently).
Because most of us find Trump repulsive, there is a tendency to assume others will too and that people will not therefore vote for him. We don’t understand why many love him. Nor do we understand that many will vote for him despite disliking him personally.
He has cleverly turned one of the criticisms made of him - that he does not follow conventions - into a strength by telling voters that he is there to serve them (unlike the conventional politicians). Regardless of whether it is true, it is an attractive message. And it may well work.
Sadly agree. Trump is going to win
A brave call! I said something equally arrogant (and wrong) on here in 2008 and it earned me the sobriquet Rogerdamus.
Yeah but that was just unlucky. I didn't think Obama would win either and told Mike so, but privately in an email - not first post up on the main thread! His price was obviously too big at 50/1 so I did get on but beat the Clinton machine? No, it was long while before I realised he was going the whole way.
Anyway your consolation is that you are immortalised in one of the best long-running jokes on PB. Long may it last. I have enjoyed it almost as much as the money.
Almost.
I think it was a bit more than just a wrong betting call to be fair. Mike's heading said something like 'Can Barack Obama at 50/1 become the first black President of the USA?' which made my 'No' sound a bit more arrogant than questioning the odds!
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
I don't think it's right that everyone detected is almost certainly infectious?
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
I'm not using the Abbott numbers, but those for the tests to be used in Liverpool. The scientists on the radio this morning were saying they had been validated at 99.9% specificity. So around 500 false positives. In any event, I addressed this in my post way upthread. Even if the false positive rate is ten times what the government estimated, isolating another 5000 alongside the 5000 infected is a comparatively small inconvenience compared with locking the entire city sold for a month or more. And likely far more effective.
Compare with real world contact tracing, and you're probably telling just as large a proportion of uninfected to self isolate, it's a more difficult task to get them to isolate, and you're only getting a small proportion of the infected anyway. Here's a thread on one study: https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1323551118320930816
Commanding lead in Wales, I guess Drakeford isn't a disaster as many here claimed
At Westminster Starmer is the Labour leader and making gains in Wales relative to Corbyn in 2019, in Cardiff Bay Drakeford is Labour leader and projected to lose seats at the Assembly elections next year compared to what Carwyn Jones got in 2016 on the same poll
From your own earlier projection, I think you mean "seat" not "seats".
Commanding lead in Wales, I guess Drakeford isn't a disaster as many here claimed
At Westminster Starmer is the Labour leader and making gains in Wales relative to Corbyn in 2019, in Cardiff Bay Drakeford is Labour leader and projected to lose seats at the Assembly elections next year compared to what Carwyn Jones got in 2016 on the same poll
Comments
A 70% isolation rate ought to be very easy to reach if you're doing a mass antigen testing exercise. I would have thought 90%+ ought to be the target.
Everyone you're detecting is almost certainly infectious, and is detected in real time, so there's no tracing to do. In a city of 500k, that might mean enforcing isolation for 5,000 people. How hard is that in reality ?
We're just not trying.
(edit) And kudos for producing those numbers. Very interesting.
It does rather depend on what dangers you have in mind
Market on who will be the first to do so?
I wrote to him last night about this new rule about pubs not being able to sell takeaway alcohol and got a substantive reply this morning and confirmation that he’s written to the PM about it.
Meanwhile let’s see if Trudi Harrison, the MP in whose constituency we live, will respond. I doubt it - she is Boris’s PPS after all. Nice lady. But she’s been utterly feeble these past few months.
But yes, I agree with you on the ease of isolation with city or area based testing. The issue is that cities and regions don't have hard borders like nation states. Slovakia can do this exercise and effectively shut it's borders with 14 day hotel based quarantine requirements for all incoming people like Australia and New Zealand. Liverpool can't do that so ultimately these strategies only work to stop outbreaks, not as a solution for reducing transmission.
Of recent leaders, Dave was the man for the job. By all accounts from the civil service, always ontop of the red box, quick to digest info and make a decision, while also able to delegate. For all the claims of loving to chillax, nobody ever claimed he didn't get what was required done (unlike Brown, where the backlog piled up).
I hope that she feels free to make the choice without being pressured one way or the other.
I've said this before, but have you hunted out the original paper that stated 80-90% non compliance. It was very aggressive in determining that, for instance, not getting a test if you had any cough or temperature for which there was a self-evident alternative cause, counted as a testing non compliance. They explicitly stated pretty much in those words. Isolation had to be a full 14 days to count, so if test and trace took a couple of days, I read that as not counting.
The truth may be that we are removing far more than 20% of potential infectious contacts by isolation even where those isolations are not absolute, and a plan to improved practical and easily accessible support for those isolating (e.g. a 111 option to connect to locally led services?) wouldaje a difference. I think we really don't know here.
In the PA House elections Democrats won the vote 55.0% to 44.4% but Republicans got 110 out of 203 seats.
On the one hand those margins are probably fairly promising for Biden taking Pennsylvania. On the other hand to win by over 8%, with well over 50% of the vote, and the other party gets a majority is shit, I don't know why anyone puts up with it. And this assembly makes election law in Pennsylvania for the presidential election too - which may turn out to be significant.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/02/us-election-2020-presidential-what-time-results-guide
We got chatting and I asked him why he thought so many gays voted Tory (we are in the days where the Tories were far less tolerant than today). I have to say I felt quite stupid and embarrassed by his reply which was basically being gay is not the be all and end all of being gay. Gays come in all hues of opinion and character just like everyone else eg bright, stupid, selfish, considerate, right wing, left wing, etc, etc. Obvious really.
Assuming Dems win Wisconsin and Michigan which even RCP have in the blue common by 5 and 6% margins then Biden only needs one of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio or Texas.
Trump needs them all to win, Biden only needs 1 and if gets the lot it's a landslide. The actual result will probably be somewhere in the middle.
I think Biden will pick up PA, AZ, Florida and NC. So my bet is on 335 -203 for Biden.
And why not?
https://twitter.com/Alan_Cochrane/status/1323582614301822976?s=20
https://twitter.com/ITVWales/status/1323533968529149952?s=20
Clinton did 2.8% worse in Pennsylvania than nationally.
The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
It's not complicated.
Just a few things under Trumps watch:
Refused visas to same sex partners of diplomats
Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census
Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites
And as for his VP, this is what Trump himself said about Mike Pence's views on homosexuality - “Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!”
No evidence at all!
Anyway your consolation is that you are immortalised in one of the best long-running jokes on PB. Long may it last. I have enjoyed it almost as much as the money.
Almost.
It's not big and it's not clever.
It is slightly odd that the rule applies even to one companion only, but maybe they are just trying to keep things simple (and avoiud the impression of pandering to PBTory golf players as opposed to proletarian footie types?).
I said that LGBT is generally on the "other side" of the "culture war". This is undoubtedly a fact. Trump supporters as a whole dislike the metropolitan liberal "city" attitude to sex, gender, and relationships. They are more conservative and religious.
The Village People have always been associated with this metropolitan liberal attitude. Thus there is irony.
If you use Abbott figures of: sensitivity (97.1%) and specificity (98.5%) on a population of 500k and assume 1% of population actually has the disease...
Then you get 4,855 true positives and 7,425 false positives = 40% chance person testing positive actually has disease.
It's clearly great news that you've got a big proportion of the infected into isolation, but you are probably falsely isolating a reasonable number of people.
https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2020-08-26-Abbotts-Fast-5-15-Minute-Easy-to-Use-COVID-19-Antigen-Test-Receives-FDA-Emergency-Use-Authorization-Mobile-App-Displays-Test-Results-to-Help-Our-Return-to-Daily-Life-Ramping-Production-to-50-Million-Tests-a-Month
Census to ask about sexual orientation for the first time
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/18/census-to-ask-about-sexual-orientation-for-the-first-time
Republicans publicly silent, privately disgusted by Trump’s election threats
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/03/republicans-trump-election-threats-433910
You think we are in any position to comment adversely on the USA?
Edit - just seen below it will be in the next one.
Overall, 319 - 219 seems to be in the right ballpark,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18839977.fifa-confirm-probe-lead-end-douglas-rosss-career-referee/
The ScoTories have been issuing bumf with picvs of Mr Ross in his FIFA shirt - a big no-no (it is not the first case of this kind, a chap in Switzerland got the heave (edit: suspension for 3 months) for somethijng of the kind).
"FIFA has confirmed that they are investigating claims Douglas Ross broke strict neutrality rules by using their logo on Tory party leaflets.
If found guilty of breaching the governing body’s statutes, the part-time professional referee could face a ban from the sport.
FIFA’s rules states that they do not take a position “in matters of politics and religion.”"
https://insights.targetsmart.com/early-vote-wrap-up-and-election-day-overview.html
One of the reasons I think Texas will flip.
How much do you want to bet that the only way to get 90% isolation involves dragging people off the streets?
I guess those old plans fro interment without trial that Blair was interested in might come in handy.
We have no idea how much we need to improve that. If we did something to try and improve it, we'd have no idea how successful it was.
Nuts.
https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1323581119963553792
A Florida man was mauled by a leopard after paying $150 for a 'full-contact experience'
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/31/us/florida-man-leopard-mauled-trnd/index.html
Commanding lead in Wales, I guess Drakeford isn't a disaster as many here claimed
Labour: 38% (+4)
Conservatives: 27% (-2)
Plaid Cymru: 20% (-4)
Brexit Party: 5% (+1)
Liberal Democrats: 3% (no change)
Greens: 3% (no change)
Others: 4% (+1)
Regional Ballot for the Senedd
Labour: 33% (no change)
Conservatives: 24% (-3)
Plaid Cymru: 20% (-3)
Abolish the Assembly: 7% (+3)
Brexit Party: 5% (+1)
Greens: 4% (no change)
Liberal Democrats: 4% (+1)
Others: 3% (+1)
Labour: 27 (+5)
Conservatives: 9 (-5)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (no change)
Labour landslide
The US Election Projects site guy Michael Mcdonald says he has been unable to update NY since 23.10.20 and NJ has a massive backlog He reckons 350k and 200k respectively. Still leaves about 27.6 million though
He also says re turnout " I know, a little disappointing we didn't reach 100 million tonight.Tomorrow morning's updates actually will cover today's activity, so they will really be early votes. I'm certain that we broke 100 million today, even if the reports come tomorrow"
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1323342287171178499
And opposite sex partners of diplomats too.
"Blocked questions regarding sexual orientation from consideration for the census"
Lol how is that anti-gay? It's none of the state's business what your sexual preference is.
"Eliminated information on LGBTQ rights, mentions, and representation on government websites"
I don't think gay people should be shoe-horned into a separate category away from everyone else as the left loves to do. Let them be in the same section as everyone else as equals.
Sounds like Trump was making fun of Pence's views not condoning them, if indeed this exchange actually ever happened. It's yet another of those anonymous quotes attributed to Trump.
https://whatscotlandthinks.org/2020/11/is-brexit-fuelling-support-for-independence/
"The results, summarised in the table below, make unfavourable reading for those who are advocating that Scotland should remain part of a UK that is now outside the EU.
First of all, we discover that on balance voters are now somewhat more likely to say that Scotland’s economy would be better (43%) as a result of independence than they are to say that it would be worse (33%), a reversal of the position prior to the 2014 independence referendum. In contrast, voters are more than three times as likely to think that Brexit would leave Britain’s economy worse off (61%) as they are to believe it would be better off (18%)."
So the Judge achieved his objective without appearing to be a hack in the headlines.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1323583164430880773?s=19
I see Registered Voters can be GoP, Dem or Independent. But what difference does that make to the vote cast? How binding is it? If I register under one Party, surely I am not bound to vote for them.
I ask because I see that the GoP has been much more successful than the Dems in getting voter registrations since the election, but is that really significant is all they are doing is enabling voters of all persuasions to cast a vote when the time comes.
In any event, I addressed this in my post way upthread.
Even if the false positive rate is ten times what the government estimated, isolating another 5000 alongside the 5000 infected is a comparatively small inconvenience compared with locking the entire city sold for a month or more. And likely far more effective.
Compare with real world contact tracing, and you're probably telling just as large a proportion of uninfected to self isolate, it's a more difficult task to get them to isolate, and you're only getting a small proportion of the infected anyway.
Here's a thread on one study:
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1323551118320930816