WH2020 passes another milestone making Trump’s effort to discredit the results even more challenging
WH2020 passes another milestone making Trump’s effort to discredit the results even more challenging – Safe Harbour Day – politicalbetting.com
Tuesday saw another important milestone for Donald Trump as he desperately tries to deny the results of the presidential election and somehow cling onto power. For it was what is known as “Safe Harbour Day” which last became an issue at WH2000 when Bush squeezed victory over Gore following the very tight race in Florida.
Comments
-
First, like the Brexit disruption.0
-
Betfair look ever more ridiculous.0
-
Third. Or given Trump, should that be turd.1
-
Betfair? SCOTUS should intervene and administer a fair and final adjudication.0
-
Enjoyable American interview with understated nonagenarian vaccine recipient - shows the best stereotypes of both countries, with Americans genuinely touched and the pensioner complaining about the parking and the lunch but hoping he didn't get the bloody bug, since no point in dying now.
https://twitter.com/i/status/13363318182582353981 -
If safe harbour day only exists as a thing in the US should we spell it harbor?4
-
Although Goves Today appearance was a bit of a car crash, he did though provide lots of information. He was cannily pub quizzed on it, which got a few yes and no’s. enough for us to draw a sort of idea? The yes’s came with a “for a time”. So they have added sunset clauses to everything? So a slow drift from BINO to real thing?
Which isn’t bad actually. The sort of thing BIG G would like.0 -
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.05
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.02
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.04
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.07
Biden ECV 300-329 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.06
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.07
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.05
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.12
Trump exit date 2021 1.1
0 -
Reluctantly, yes.paulyork64 said:If safe harbour day only exists as a thing in the US should we spell it harbor?
0 -
Rumours of problems at Felixstowe Port on the previous thread must surely be Fake News. I say this because back in September the port operator (Hutchison Ports) employed Chris Grayling as an advisor, for the modest sum of £100K for seven hours work a week (leaving him plenty of time to pursue his second job as an MP). Surely they haven't wasted their money?1
-
I think a fitting tribute is due to Chris Grayling. At a time when it is difficult enough to find just one job, he has bagged two.Northern_Al said:Rumours of problems at Felixstowe Port on the previous thread must surely be Fake News. I say this because back in September the port operator (Hutchison Ports) employed Chris Grayling as an advisor, for the modest sum of £100K for seven hours work a week (leaving him plenty of time to pursue his second job as an MP). Surely they haven't wasted their money?
What a grafter!0 -
I think a fitting tribute is due to Chris Grayling. At a time when it is difficult enough to find just one job, he has bagged two.Northern_Al said:Rumours of problems at Felixstowe Port on the previous thread must surely be Fake News. I say this because back in September the port operator (Hutchison Ports) employed Chris Grayling as an advisor, for the modest sum of £100K for seven hours work a week (leaving him plenty of time to pursue his second job as an MP). Surely they haven't wasted their money?
What a grafter!0 -
Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.0
-
OT what has happened to Susan Rice, once touted for VP after her long White House association with Biden under Obama and as UN Ambassador? She has not picked up any of the top jobs so far. What is left? Surely her sights are higher than Ambassador to the Court of St James King Boris.0
-
I see Germany recorded their highest number of deaths on a single day yesterday. The 622 deaths reported on 8 December was up from the 497 reported seven days earlier. This is interesting because from around three weeks before 1 December, the number of cases started to level off. On 10 November they reported 16,668 cases and on 17 November they reported 16,206 cases.
This suggests that the levelling off in case numbers in Germany reflects the fact they've hit capacity in terms of testing and that actually case numbers continued to rise. One to keep an eye one.1 -
What type of building materials is your builder having trouble sourcing?WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November, but now worse.
0 -
I wonder how badly you have to fuck up inside Berlaymonster to be told that your new assignment effective 1/1/21 is a shed from B&Q in fucking Larne.2
-
Will ask him when I see him after lunch.NerysHughes said:
What type of building materials is your builder having trouble sourcing?WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November, but now worse.
0 -
OT having been made redundant recently, I am now being sent on a regular basis adverts for jobs in the Prison Service and the Census.0
-
Once the EC meets on December 14th and elects Biden then under the US constitution he will formally be President elect, so it will finally be over at that point0
-
-
If you apply for a Census job, make sure you're working in a nice area.DecrepiterJohnL said:OT having been made redundant recently, I am now being sent on a regular basis adverts for jobs in the Prison Service and the Census.
1 -
Exciting builder news update from my wife - she says, that he says, trouble getting the right replacement power and plumbing tools, cladding, and things like that, and some appliances aren't arriving on time.NerysHughes said:
What type of building materials is your builder having trouble sourcing?WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November, but now worse.
0 -
Apparently Merkel is under pressure to cancel Christmas:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9030889/Experts-plead-Angela-Merkel-Germany-tightened-lockdown-January-10.html0 -
It would have to be a spectacular screw-up. The nearest B&Q to Larne is in Whiteabbey about 20 miles awayDura_Ace said:I wonder how badly you have to fuck up inside Berlaymonster to be told that your new assignment effective 1/1/21 is a shed from B&Q in fucking Larne.
0 -
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns0 -
Consistent with Biden's brand of never going on Twitter, basically none of the appointments so far have been big names who previously put themselves in the middle of a story. Except for Janet Yellen, I guess, but aside from having a big job she was also pretty STFU-and-get-shit-done-ish.DecrepiterJohnL said:OT what has happened to Susan Rice, once touted for VP after her long White House association with Biden under Obama and as UN Ambassador? She has not picked up any of the top jobs so far. What is left? Surely her sights are higher than Ambassador to the Court of St James King Boris.
0 -
-
If it is true, then Grayling has simply delivered the service for which he has built up a considerable reputation over a number of years. Given his high profile track record, the port operator surely got exactly what they wanted.Northern_Al said:Rumours of problems at Felixstowe Port on the previous thread must surely be Fake News. I say this because back in September the port operator (Hutchison Ports) employed Chris Grayling as an advisor, for the modest sum of £100K for seven hours work a week (leaving him plenty of time to pursue his second job as an MP). Surely they haven't wasted their money?
One can only imagine the board are all rabid remoaners determined for there to be Brexit chaos.4 -
Could be that his aptitude at keeping his job as disaster after disaster unfolds is exactly the kind of experience they were looking to learn from.Selebian said:
If it is true, then Grayling has simply delivered the service for which he has built up a considerable reputation over a number of years. Given his high profile track record, the port operator surely got exactly what they wanted.Northern_Al said:Rumours of problems at Felixstowe Port on the previous thread must surely be Fake News. I say this because back in September the port operator (Hutchison Ports) employed Chris Grayling as an advisor, for the modest sum of £100K for seven hours work a week (leaving him plenty of time to pursue his second job as an MP). Surely they haven't wasted their money?
One can only imagine the board are all rabid remoaners determined for there to be Brexit chaos.1 -
That was hilarious, may he live many more yearsNickPalmer said:Enjoyable American interview with understated nonagenarian vaccine recipient - shows the best stereotypes of both countries, with Americans genuinely touched and the pensioner complaining about the parking and the lunch but hoping he didn't get the bloody bug, since no point in dying now.
https://twitter.com/i/status/13363318182582353986 -
Betfair will almost certainly settle on that date, even though it has no more relevance to their original rules than any other date arbitrarily plucked off the calendar.HYUFD said:Once the EC meets on December 14th and elects Biden then under the US constitution he will formally be President elect, so it will finally be over at that point
It will be a face-saving formula for them. They can point to the college vote as if it were decisive for betting purposes and when they have settled the public fuss will die down. Longer term, they will have to deal with the damage to their reputation and the very strong possibility of inquiries by the Gambling Commission, who will no doubt be as concerned by the moneylaundering aspects of the matter as the protracted delay in settling markets.
I doubt we will see much public evidence of this, especially if it transpires that Betfair's behaviour is a demonstration of incompetence rather than mischief, which I think is likely to be the case. If the GC manage to make them smarten up their act however that will be a decent result.
Won't bother me either way though. Once settled, I'll be closing my account for good. I don't need them, and I can't be having a market maker that moves the goalposts.2 -
Not necessarily. Safe harbours exist outside the US, so fair to spell it with the "u"kle4 said:
Reluctantly, yes.paulyork64 said:If safe harbour day only exists as a thing in the US should we spell it harbor?
0 -
0
-
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns0 -
Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.0 -
I think Rice would have been too controversial given her past experience and it would have united the different wings of the GOP in opposition. Biden's appointments are Obama retreads but low profile ones (uncontroversial is not the right word, given some of their previous actions).edmundintokyo said:
Consistent with Biden's brand of never going on Twitter, basically none of the appointments so far have been big names who previously put themselves in the middle of a story. Except for Janet Yellen, I guess, but aside from having a big job she was also pretty STFU-and-get-shit-done-ish.DecrepiterJohnL said:OT what has happened to Susan Rice, once touted for VP after her long White House association with Biden under Obama and as UN Ambassador? She has not picked up any of the top jobs so far. What is left? Surely her sights are higher than Ambassador to the Court of St James King Boris.
0 -
Boris was elected on promising the Red Wall everything they wanted.MrEd said:
Unless the Tories improve things those seats will revert to form (witness Redcar in 2010- Lib Dem and 2015 - back to Safe Labour).
So whether Boris wants to continue the triple lock or not if the party wants to be sure of the next election he needs to give the Red Wall the things that have been promised to them.0 -
It's a garden shed from B&Q (other suppliers of sheds may be closer) not in B&Q.Beibheirli_C said:
It would have to be a spectacular screw-up. The nearest B&Q to Larne is in Whiteabbey about 20 miles awayDura_Ace said:I wonder how badly you have to fuck up inside Berlaymonster to be told that your new assignment effective 1/1/21 is a shed from B&Q in fucking Larne.
1 -
Merkel is already asking for tougher restrictions but can't get the states to agree. Yet.tlg86 said:Apparently Merkel is under pressure to cancel Christmas:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9030889/Experts-plead-Angela-Merkel-Germany-tightened-lockdown-January-10.html0 -
It needs to be trialled to see where the efficacy data ends up. Right now we don't know what level of protection a single dose gives, it could be just 30% or it could be 70%.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.0 -
Mrs Grinchkamski said:
Merkel is already asking for tougher restrictions but can't get the states to agree. Yet.tlg86 said:Apparently Merkel is under pressure to cancel Christmas:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9030889/Experts-plead-Angela-Merkel-Germany-tightened-lockdown-January-10.html0 -
Fair enough. Larne is mostly built on a hill. I am not sure that there is anywhere flat enough for gardenseek said:
It's a garden shed from B&Q (other suppliers of sheds may be closer) not in B&Q.Beibheirli_C said:
It would have to be a spectacular screw-up. The nearest B&Q to Larne is in Whiteabbey about 20 miles awayDura_Ace said:I wonder how badly you have to fuck up inside Berlaymonster to be told that your new assignment effective 1/1/21 is a shed from B&Q in fucking Larne.
My friend's girlfriend (now his wife) had a property on the seafront near the tower. Beautiful views over to Scotland and The Maidens, but if a big sea built up in bad weather, the water came up to your doorstep. They now live well inland (closer to B&Q)
3 -
A reverse of the situation in the US?kamski said:
Merkel is already asking for tougher restrictions but can't get the states to agree. Yet.tlg86 said:Apparently Merkel is under pressure to cancel Christmas:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9030889/Experts-plead-Angela-Merkel-Germany-tightened-lockdown-January-10.html0 -
Sure, but given that everyone knew there would be initially severe shortages of doses to vaccinate everyone (especially worldwide), I'm wondering why the decision was made by those companies only to trial double doses. It would surely be useful to know how effective a single dose is so that a decision can be made on whether to vaccinate twice as many people.MaxPB said:
It needs to be trialled to see where the efficacy data ends up. Right now we don't know what level of protection a single dose gives, it could be just 30% or it could be 70%.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.0 -
Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.1 -
Not dumb at all. It seems sensible to have run a parallel trial.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.0 -
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns0 -
Because the aim of the pharma companies is to provide the best protection against the virus. That's their remit and they believe a booster is necessary to achieve that based on PII trial data. Different governments might ask for single dose regimes be trialled and approved of they have high enough efficacy but you can't do that from the current data.kamski said:
Sure, but given that everyone knew there would be initially severe shortages of doses to vaccinate everyone (especially worldwide), I'm wondering why the decision was made by those companies only to trial double doses. It would surely be useful to know how effective a single dose is so that a decision can be made on whether to vaccinate twice as many people.MaxPB said:
It needs to be trialled to see where the efficacy data ends up. Right now we don't know what level of protection a single dose gives, it could be just 30% or it could be 70%.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.0 -
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?HYUFD said:
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option.6 -
It is a learned reflex. Lifelong Tories find that cutting their taxes helps them endure any problem. Other people's taxes can go up...kinabalu said:
Traditional Tories want tax cuts to pay for Covid?HYUFD said:
Odd comment. If tax CUTS would pay for Covid I think almost everyone would choose that option. 1 -
Generally, two doses have been shown to be most effective for a fairly wide range of vaccines. It makes sense to focus the trials on a dosing regimen most likely to be successful, particularly when getting enough events to do the assessments can be challenging.kamski said:
Sure, but given that everyone knew there would be initially severe shortages of doses to vaccinate everyone (especially worldwide), I'm wondering why the decision was made by those companies only to trial double doses. It would surely be useful to know how effective a single dose is so that a decision can be made on whether to vaccinate twice as many people.MaxPB said:
It needs to be trialled to see where the efficacy data ends up. Right now we don't know what level of protection a single dose gives, it could be just 30% or it could be 70%.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.
Say they'd gambled on a one dose trial and it came back at 40% effective. Not good enough, but now a second trial is needed to check whether two doses is better and we're well into next year before we know.
You could of course throw more money at the problem (try and recruit double the people and trial one and two doses simultaneously). But even under that scenario (if possible in terms of production. recruitment etc) you could instead have done a double size trial on two dose vaccine and got the results in around half the time.
There are also other factors - a two dose AZN vaccine might still be cheaper (it's under half the price) and maybe quicker to produce two doses than a notional one dose version of the Pfizer vaccine
In short, it would have been a big gamble and likely have delayed vaccine approval and roll out. Of course, if it turns out that one dose would give 70% then it would all have been fine, but we don't know that.
2 -
Right. My problem is this: Maybe it is better to vaccinate twice as many people with somewhat lower protection. Is there any evidence on this in the PII trial data?MaxPB said:
Because the aim of the pharma companies is to provide the best protection against the virus. That's their remit and they believe a booster is necessary to achieve that based on PII trial data. Different governments might ask for single dose regimes be trialled and approved of they have high enough efficacy but you can't do that from the current data.kamski said:
Sure, but given that everyone knew there would be initially severe shortages of doses to vaccinate everyone (especially worldwide), I'm wondering why the decision was made by those companies only to trial double doses. It would surely be useful to know how effective a single dose is so that a decision can be made on whether to vaccinate twice as many people.MaxPB said:
It needs to be trialled to see where the efficacy data ends up. Right now we don't know what level of protection a single dose gives, it could be just 30% or it could be 70%.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.
Is the remit to provide the best protection against the virus for the individual vaccinated, OR to provide the best protection for society in terms of numbers of people gettting sick/numbers dying/how soon distancing measures can be eased?0 -
Thing that worries me is that their identical corporate bullshit response to the complaints from you, Bigjohnowls and me did not mention 14th December, It was more vague than that.Peter_the_Punter said:
Betfair will almost certainly settle on that date, even though it has no more relevance to their original rules than any other date arbitrarily plucked off the calendar.HYUFD said:Once the EC meets on December 14th and elects Biden then under the US constitution he will formally be President elect, so it will finally be over at that point
It will be a face-saving formula for them. They can point to the college vote as if it were decisive for betting purposes and when they have settled the public fuss will die down. Longer term, they will have to deal with the damage to their reputation and the very strong possibility of inquiries by the Gambling Commission, who will no doubt be as concerned by the moneylaundering aspects of the matter as the protracted delay in settling markets.
I doubt we will see much public evidence of this, especially if it transpires that Betfair's behaviour is a demonstration of incompetence rather than mischief, which I think is likely to be the case. If the GC manage to make them smarten up their act however that will be a decent result.
Won't bother me either way though. Once settled, I'll be closing my account for good. I don't need them, and I can't be having a market maker that moves the goalposts.
Did you see my post this morning PtP (at 07:47)? I saw yours yesterday on same topic.0 -
Useful tip for people resistant to algorithms telling them what to do...
https://www.techcentral.ie/how-to-turn-off-outlooks-horrible-top-results-feature/1 -
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns0 -
I don't recall it turning out brilliantly for the Sheriff of Nottingham. I am sure I saw a documentary about that....tlg86 said:Apparently Merkel is under pressure to cancel Christmas:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9030889/Experts-plead-Angela-Merkel-Germany-tightened-lockdown-January-10.html0 -
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.NerysHughes said:
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
0 -
No there isn't, which is why a new PIII efficacy trial would need to be run and from a medicines point of view the remit is to provide the individual with the best possible protection, it always has been. It would be a very brave regulator that switched to a single dose based on currently available trial data and they would get rightly criticised for doing so.kamski said:
Right. My problem is this: Maybe it is better to vaccinate twice as many people with somewhat lower protection. Is there any evidence on this in the PII trial data?MaxPB said:
Because the aim of the pharma companies is to provide the best protection against the virus. That's their remit and they believe a booster is necessary to achieve that based on PII trial data. Different governments might ask for single dose regimes be trialled and approved of they have high enough efficacy but you can't do that from the current data.kamski said:
Sure, but given that everyone knew there would be initially severe shortages of doses to vaccinate everyone (especially worldwide), I'm wondering why the decision was made by those companies only to trial double doses. It would surely be useful to know how effective a single dose is so that a decision can be made on whether to vaccinate twice as many people.MaxPB said:
It needs to be trialled to see where the efficacy data ends up. Right now we don't know what level of protection a single dose gives, it could be just 30% or it could be 70%.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
J&J are running such a trial and I'm sure if there's demand then Pfizer, Moderna and AZ will also run similar trials. The regulators have to tread a very difficult path of being fast but not taking risks, approving single dose regimes without having specific data for them would be a huge risk.
Is the remit to provide the best protection against the virus for the individual vaccinated, OR to provide the best protection for society in terms of numbers of people gettting sick/numbers dying/how soon distancing measures can be eased?
As I said, governments may ask for PIII trials to be run on the basis of hitting 60-70% efficacy on a single dose but until those trials are complete there is no way the regulator can approve a single dose vaccine because the efficacy is unknown and immunity levels can't easily be modelled.0 -
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.0 -
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.0 -
Just remind me of the usual sequencing: Boom then bust? Or the other way around?Mexicanpete said:
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.NerysHughes said:
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
Money has been hosed around. When does the bill come in? Who pays?0 -
I've heard that a lot. Mates not having time or able to be choosy what jobs they want, putting in expensive quotes and still being offered the work. I keep getting asked to labour for them, or if i know anybody who will!NerysHughes said:
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns0 -
Microsoft seems to have an enterprise-wide sanity void when it comes to search algorithms. The Windows 10 search facility is quite humongously insane.NickPalmer said:Useful tip for people resistant to algorithms telling them what to do...
https://www.techcentral.ie/how-to-turn-off-outlooks-horrible-top-results-feature/1 -
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.0 -
Does anyone know if Isam is OK? He hasn`t posted for days. Which is unusual.0
-
SCOTUS has already dismissed one PA case, er, dismissively....DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336429227072217091?s=200 -
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.Mexicanpete said:
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.NerysHughes said:
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!0 -
It is stupid - assuming that the rules changes were legal. I`m sure they were. I posted a few weeks ago that it was these changes that proved decisive in the election.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.0 -
Contrarian is working his way along the grieving curve. Weirdly though he has slid back to the denial phase.Benpointer said:
Much as you would like to see a Trump coup (for reasons that are entirely beyond me) this case is not serious, it's frivlolous. It has zero chance of success.contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.0 -
Thanks, Stocky. I agree with the 7.47am post. You have to think Betfair have something more in mind than their two-bob UK customers. The reference to their 'US Lawyers' was intruiguing. Why the US when they are a UK company and almost certainly any dispute would be settled under UK law? I don't suppose there is any chance of them publishing this legal advice! You can bet they would have done if it didn't embarrass them further.Stocky said:
Thing that worries me is that their identical corporate bullshit response to the complaints from you, Bigjohnowls and me did not mention 14th December, It was more vague than that.Peter_the_Punter said:
Betfair will almost certainly settle on that date, even though it has no more relevance to their original rules than any other date arbitrarily plucked off the calendar.HYUFD said:Once the EC meets on December 14th and elects Biden then under the US constitution he will formally be President elect, so it will finally be over at that point
It will be a face-saving formula for them. They can point to the college vote as if it were decisive for betting purposes and when they have settled the public fuss will die down. Longer term, they will have to deal with the damage to their reputation and the very strong possibility of inquiries by the Gambling Commission, who will no doubt be as concerned by the moneylaundering aspects of the matter as the protracted delay in settling markets.
I doubt we will see much public evidence of this, especially if it transpires that Betfair's behaviour is a demonstration of incompetence rather than mischief, which I think is likely to be the case. If the GC manage to make them smarten up their act however that will be a decent result.
Won't bother me either way though. Once settled, I'll be closing my account for good. I don't need them, and I can't be having a market maker that moves the goalposts.
Did you see my post this morning PtP (at 07:47)? I saw yours yesterday on same topic.
You are right about their bullshit replies. They made matters less certain, not more. Instead of referring us to a definite date or circumstances for settlement, they alluded airily to a number of possible factors, including the unlikely event of a concession from Trum, without in any way committing themselves.
So you are right to suspect that they may not settle on December but on some indefinite future date, according to their whim. They seem to think they have a right to do this. If they do, the GC will almost certainly be saying 'Hi'.
For the moment, nothing we can do for the time being but wait patiently.
edit: I did notice the typo but it always nice to take the p out of Trump.1 -
Builders in my neighbourhood are run off their feet. Up and down the local streets there are endless skips. People having extensions, new drives, patios, loft conversions. Never seen things so busy building wise.NerysHughes said:
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.Mexicanpete said:
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.NerysHughes said:
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!
0 -
Which was the 1 out of 50 cases to have gone Trump's way again, and why was that ?Benpointer said:
SCOTUS has already dismissed one PA case, er, dismissively....DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336429227072217091?s=200 -
Yeah, but...all borrowed money, and who are the tenants ready to move into these shiny new buildings?NerysHughes said:
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.Mexicanpete said:
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.NerysHughes said:
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!0 -
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/09/grace-period-for-brexit-checks-on-supermarket-supplies-to-northern-ireland
"Brexit: Northern Ireland firms will have to fill out forms to send goods to Britain
Boris Johnson makes climbdown a year after saying companies could throw paperwork in the bin"0 -
I do wonder what will happen now on BF in the run-up to POTUS 2024. It turned out to be a huge market for them (£1,569,133,907 when I looked!!!!) but has caused them some grief.Peter_the_Punter said:
Betfair will almost certainly settle on that date, even though it has no more relevance to their original rules than any other date arbitrarily plucked off the calendar.HYUFD said:Once the EC meets on December 14th and elects Biden then under the US constitution he will formally be President elect, so it will finally be over at that point
It will be a face-saving formula for them. They can point to the college vote as if it were decisive for betting purposes and when they have settled the public fuss will die down. Longer term, they will have to deal with the damage to their reputation and the very strong possibility of inquiries by the Gambling Commission, who will no doubt be as concerned by the moneylaundering aspects of the matter as the protracted delay in settling markets.
I doubt we will see much public evidence of this, especially if it transpires that Betfair's behaviour is a demonstration of incompetence rather than mischief, which I think is likely to be the case. If the GC manage to make them smarten up their act however that will be a decent result.
Won't bother me either way though. Once settled, I'll be closing my account for good. I don't need them, and I can't be having a market maker that moves the goalposts.
0 -
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.Philip_Thompson said:0 -
American lawyers presumably to advise on when the election could be definitively called. I'd not read any more than that into it, even if I did suspect a US-based whale in the next president market.Peter_the_Punter said:
Thanks, Stocky. I agree with the 7.47am post. You have to think Betfair have something more in mind than their two-bob UK customers. The reference to their 'US Lawyers' was intruiguing. Why the US when they are a UK company and almost certainly any dispute would be settled under UK law? I don't suppose there is any chance of them publishing this legal advice! You can bet they would have done if it didn't embarrass them further.Stocky said:
Thing that worries me is that their identical corporate bullshit response to the complaints from you, Bigjohnowls and me did not mention 14th December, It was more vague than that.Peter_the_Punter said:
Betfair will almost certainly settle on that date, even though it has no more relevance to their original rules than any other date arbitrarily plucked off the calendar.HYUFD said:Once the EC meets on December 14th and elects Biden then under the US constitution he will formally be President elect, so it will finally be over at that point
It will be a face-saving formula for them. They can point to the college vote as if it were decisive for betting purposes and when they have settled the public fuss will die down. Longer term, they will have to deal with the damage to their reputation and the very strong possibility of inquiries by the Gambling Commission, who will no doubt be as concerned by the moneylaundering aspects of the matter as the protracted delay in settling markets.
I doubt we will see much public evidence of this, especially if it transpires that Betfair's behaviour is a demonstration of incompetence rather than mischief, which I think is likely to be the case. If the GC manage to make them smarten up their act however that will be a decent result.
Won't bother me either way though. Once settled, I'll be closing my account for good. I don't need them, and I can't be having a market maker that moves the goalposts.
Did you see my post this morning PtP (at 07:47)? I saw yours yesterday on same topic.
You are right about their bullshit replies. They made matters less certain, not more. Instead of referring us to a definite date or circumstances for settlement, they alluded airily to a number of possible factors, including the unlikely event of a concession from Trum, without in any way committing themselves.
So you are right to suspect that they may not settle on December but on some indefinite future date, according to their whim. They seem to think they have a right to do this. If they do, the GC will almost certainly be saying 'Hi'.
For the moment, nothing we can do for the time being but wait patiently.
edit: I did notice the typo but it always nice to take the p out of Trump.2 -
Have they asked them to just be nulled?Benpointer said:
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.
I thought they'd asked them to be nulled and the legislatures of those slates to put in new [Trump] electors in their place, which would be enough.
If the SCOTUS doesn't dismiss this with prejudice 9-0 then SCOTUS is seriously corrupted.0 -
In April we wondered whether we would have a business by Christmas, we now have doubled the staff, we are working on a whole range of projects including a new office development where all the units are already taken. There is so much money sloshing around the economy with people desperate to spend it.Mexicanpete said:
Yeah, but...all borrowed money, and who are the tenants ready to move into these shiny new buildings?NerysHughes said:
The key is that it is not just domestic builders, its in the commercial/industrial sector as well. There is huge investment going on.Mexicanpete said:
Indeed, it's boom time for builders! House sales are also through the roof. Banging lease deals for new cars are all around too. All paid for with cheaply borrowed cash.NerysHughes said:
From a commercial/industrial development/refurbishment standpoint the situation in Hampshire is incredible. We are now turning down work cause we are so busy (M&E Contractor). We priced for a new submain the other day which we knew we did not have the labour to complete it so we put a price in double the cost (16K instead of 8K). We got the order instantly.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I've got a lot of friends in the trades, and they all report being busy. The first lockdown was a bit grim, but most now seem to be on target for a slightly better than normal year. I guess the lack of foreign holidays this year and working from home has freed up some cash and altered people's priorities into spending money on home improvements.NerysHughes said:
The problem seems to be caused by a 30% increase in demand, I suppose people have nothing else to spend money on so are doing extensionsCarnyx said:
This was in the Graun the other day - apparently port holdups.WhisperingOracle said:Anecdotally, the builder working on my property is already having trouble sourcing various things, and says some things have been notably slower to arrive all the way since last October-November - which presumably would have been when some of the stockpiling started in advance of the negotiations then - but now worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/07/builders-run-short-of-supplies-as-uk-port-holdups-raise-brexit-concerns
Tried to visit Pets at Home in Bridgend yesterday on my way back from work. It had closed...for good. Repaying the cheaply borrowed cash might have a snag or two.
V shaped recovery nailed on!0 -
Precisely and you'd be wrong.Mexicanpete said:
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.Philip_Thompson said:
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.0 -
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
0 -
That's enough, you need an outright majority to win the Presidency on Electoral Votes.Benpointer said:
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.
If you fail to get 270+ it goes to a vote by state to decide the winner.0 -
-
-
Seen it. Unlikely to get to first base. The SC will see that it is strangled at birth so they don't have to give a 9-0 ruling.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.0 -
SCOTUS docketing the case doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they've chosen to hear the case, just that it has been properly filed by the States. SCOTUS hasn't responded yet, if they act to form they will simply dismiss this without hearing it when it does become time to respond to it.contrarian said:
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.0 -
No 270 = contingent election = Trump win. I think?Benpointer said:
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.
If it happens I will laugh all the way to an anal prolapse.1 -
Adding multiple arms to a trial increases complexity, reduces the statistical power and extends the timeline needed for patient recruitmentkjh said:
Not dumb at all. It seems sensible to have run a parallel trial.kamski said:Maybe a dumb question but:
Is it a mistake not to have allowed for approval for a single dose of vaccines so that twice as many people can be vaccinated, at least until supplies are less limited?
It is possible that what is in the interests of eg Pfizer - bragging rights of a 95% effective vaccine and they are going to sell all the doses they produce anyway - may not be what is in the best interests of public health. Say a single dose is about 70% effective - in purely mathematical terms isn't it likely that vaccinating twice as many people is going to do more good? I realise there are a whole bunch of other issues, but a bit surprised that it isn't being considered, or if it is I haven't heard.
They will have looked at the entrails of the earlier trials, picked the best option and run hard. You can backfill later on alternative dosing regimes if necessary.0 -
SCOTUS has traditionally been very supportive of States rights in terms of regulating voting, perhaps overly so as they have ignored blatant gerrymandering and voter suppression techniques. It would take a truly remarkable change of heart for them to give this even vague consideration. File under notgoingtohappen.Benpointer said:
The other bizarre thing about this SCOTUS case is that the GOP have not included sufficient states for Trump to win. Since they have only asked for PA, GA, WI, and MI results to be nulled, if successful they'd leave Biden winning 244 to 232. They needed to have included AZ and NV too.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
But they have zero chance of nullifiying the votes in any of these states.1 -
I doubt this spurious Texas case has the legs to get it to SCOTUS. If it ever did, and SCOTUS were dull enough to overturn enough states for Trump, the USA would very shortly enter Mad Max dystopian nightmare territory.contrarian said:
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.0 -
Yes they probably will.Philip_Thompson said:
SCOTUS docketing the case doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they've chosen to hear the case, just that it has been properly filed by the States. SCOTUS hasn't responded yet, if they act to form they will simply dismiss this without hearing it when it does become time to respond to it.contrarian said:
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
Perhaps some may ask what the US Supreme Court is for, if not to resolve disputes between individual states along the lines of the constitution?
0 -
I would respectfully suggest that would suggest a fairly limited understanding of economics. The problem with the Laffer curve, a bit like Schrodinger's cat, is that observation of the phenomenon seems to change behaviour. Doesn't make it any less real though.Mexicanpete said:
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.Philip_Thompson said:2 -
Spent much of my life in the tax biz, PT. The Laffer curve (or Larfer, as it was often known) is a bit of joke. The basic assumption is flawed so it is not surprising the conclusions the fiscally illiterate draw from it are incorrect.Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely and you'd be wrong.Mexicanpete said:
Some of us would claim the Laffer curve to be a smoke and mirrors illusion.Philip_Thompson said:
It is fair enough to argue that we are on the left hand side of the Laffer curve, but to deny the curve at all is just ignorance.0 -
There is no dispute here between states along the lines of the constitution. It is none of Texas's business how Pennsylvania awards its Electors that is for Pennsylvania to determine. Texas lack standing to even file this.contrarian said:
Yes they probably will.Philip_Thompson said:
SCOTUS docketing the case doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean they've chosen to hear the case, just that it has been properly filed by the States. SCOTUS hasn't responded yet, if they act to form they will simply dismiss this without hearing it when it does become time to respond to it.contrarian said:
The case, as I understand it, rests on who was doing the changing. Officials without recourse to legislators. Which is not constitutional, apparently.DavidL said:
Seriously stupid. Pretty much every State in the Union changed its rules to some extent to cope with the Virus. The only attraction this nonsense has from Trump's point of view is that in terms of the Constitution it goes direct to the Supreme Court. I suspect Ted Cruz is behind this. Was he not a clerk to a Supreme Court justice at one point?contrarian said:
It may not appear much in the news but the State of Texas, with the backing of a number of other states, is suing PA, GA Wisconsin and Michigan.kinabalu said:Yep, Safe Harbor Day has come and gone, giving yet greater certainty to Biden's win, and the Betfair market has duly reacted -
Trump steams in to 20s.
I'm no lawyer but the case involves changes to election rules made by the states being sued, which Texas alleges are illegal.
Only the Supreme Court can deliberate in legal disputes between states, as I understand it. This is serious.
The suit has was laid by the AG of Texas and has the support of other state AGs. Not Ted Cruz.
The Supreme Court has docketed the case and the sued states must respond by Thursday.
Perhaps some may ask what the US Supreme Court is for, if not to resolve disputes between individual states along the lines of the constitution?-1
