StuartDickson said:

Andy_JS said:

StuartDickson said:

Leon said:

Besides the content, check the language on this Dutch tweet. There is so much English in it, she is basically speaking English

I’ve seen the same in Sweden and Denmark. I wonder if these smaller European languages will survive for much longer. The urge to talk - certainly online - in plain English, and finally abandon Dutch, must be intense. You instantly get a vastly bigger audience, and you’re already halfway there


‘Peter Daszak, lid vh WHO-team dat in China herkomst coronavirus onderzocht, heeft nu fuller disclosure gegeven over financiering door non-profit waarvan hij president is en dat eerder onderzoek van het Wuhanlab financieerde, recent onthuld door Vanity Fair.’

https://twitter.com/askimono/status/1407256417275371520?s=21

Swedish will extinct within a hundred years. The propensity to gleefully abandon perfectly good Swedish words and phrases for English (sometimes pseudo-English) ones is astonishing. Anyone who objects is ridiculed as a fuddy duddy who’s not down with the kids. It is part of the infamous “opinion corridor”.

I hope not. I think it's important that these languages survive. Using English ought to be discouraged in these countries. In fact I think Danish universities recently decided to stop teaching in English.

I try to discourage it, but I’m fighting a losing battle. I nearly always speak Swedish outwith the home, but we switched to English at home when the youngest was born, and sometime the language mixing within the family takes on surreal and comic levels. Even the basic grammar transmogrifies.

But what worries me is not the immigrants, like me, who use English, but the native Swedes who seem to be on a mission to assassinate their own language.

(For clarification: it is US English they use, not English English.)

+1

RobD said:

Just think about how utterly screwed we would be if Covid's hospitilisation rate was 100% without a vaccine.

In that case we'd just have to get through it as best as possible, as they did in 1918, 1957 and 1968.

Andy_JS said:

RobD said:

Just think about how utterly screwed we would be if Covid's hospitilisation rate was 100% without a vaccine.

In that case we'd just have to get through it as best as possible, as they did in 1918, 1957 and 1968.

No, it would have been nothing like 1918, 1957, or 1968. It would have been lockdown on steroids.

MattW said:

Looking at the vaccination numbers, very very low at the weekend.

Bit strange given there was supposed to be "Super Saturday". Again, shows us that focus on a few big lines at a handful of vaccination centres doesn't necessarily tell us what is happening nationwide.

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Age related data

So, almost all the new cases are among teens and twenties. Among the hospitalisations, there’s very few oldies any more - as much as we can define from those groupings, anyway.

Vaccines are working!!!

The sizes of the age groups in the admissions chart are surely VERY different, though - 15-64 is huge, 85+ not so much. So showing absolute numbers seems misleading?

alex_ said:

maaarsh said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Covid outbreak at Kenwyn Care Home where every resident is fully vaccinated (says the headline)

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/covid-outbreak-kenwyn-care-home-5556416

All of the cases have been asymptomatic....its like vaccines work or something.

Saw that yesterday. Prayers are with them. Terrifying outbreak of people feeling fit and well.

Statistically must be a reasonable chance that someone dies though to set off a new panic

Given in a care home, in which unfortunately people die on a fairly regular basis, I would have thought in an average week there is a fairly good chance one of the residence dies, because well they are very old.

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MattW said:

Looking at the vaccination numbers, very very low at the weekend.

Bit strange given there was supposed to be "Super Saturday". Again, shows us that focus on a few big lines at a handful of vaccination centres doesn't necessarily tell us what is happening nationwide.

Nah, it's a technical issue.

Excel broken again?

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MattW said:

Looking at the vaccination numbers, very very low at the weekend.

Bit strange given there was supposed to be "Super Saturday". Again, shows us that focus on a few big lines at a handful of vaccination centres doesn't necessarily tell us what is happening nationwide.

Nah, it's a technical issue.

Yep - no England figure. But I do thing all the “big events at football stadiums” were more designed for show and wouldn’t have had much effect on the overall numbers.

ping said:

It’s odd, for a betting site, that so many posters are so uncomfortable with uncertainty.

It’s ok to not yet know things.

And to plan on the basis that you don’t yet know things.

That’s what the government is doing, and for that, I applaud them.

I'm not able to applaud, since they've messed up so much, but I essentially agree with this. The delay is to allow greater certainty of the relationship between Delta and hospitals and vaccination levels. It's not a crazy decision. And if it turns out serious illness doesn't take off to the extent feared, well great, this should be welcomed rather than offered as proof the delay was wrong. Because it won't mean the delay was wrong. What it'll mean is the July 19th 'terminus' can be approached with a confidence level that would have been lacking on June 21st.

Sean_F said:

Chris said:

Anabobazina said:

Zerocovidianism and antivaxxery –– two cheeks of the same pompous arse.

Please don't come out with that straw-man drivel.

What it's about is not at all to do with "Zero COVID". It's about preventing yet another surge in hospitalisations that could overwhelm the NHS.

In case you haven't noticed, not only cases, but also hospitalisations and deaths are currently rising by 34%+ per week.

Of course vaccines can reduce the percentages that go to hospital and die, but frankly with the 60% who are most vulnerable already doubly vaccinated, they're not going to fall much further. You need to control infection too, and it's not happening.

But I know it's a waste of time saying it here.

There's nothing in the numbers to suggest we face a surge that would overwhelm the NHS. Death rates are so low that very small shifts in numbers look big in percentage terms. Numbers in hospital have been increasing slowly and are currently about 4% of where they were in January. Mass vaccination has worked.

Trends (and hence percentages) provide useful information, but they should always be trumped by absolute numbers. Percentages is how we get the WHO telling us not to eat cured meats, because it gives a 20% increase of the chance of colorectal cancer, whereas it increases your chances from 5 in 10,000 to 6 in 10,000.

kinabalu said:

ping said:

It’s odd, for a betting site, that so many posters are so uncomfortable with uncertainty.

It’s ok to not yet know things.

And to plan on the basis that you don’t yet know things.

That’s what the government is doing, and for that, I applaud them.

I'm not able to applaud, since they've messed up so much, but I essentially agree with this. The delay is to allow greater certainty of the relationship between Delta and hospitals and vaccination levels. It's not a crazy decision. And if it turns out serious illness doesn't take off to the extent feared, well great, this should be welcomed rather than offered as proof the delay was wrong. Because it won't mean the delay was wrong. What it'll mean is the July 19th 'terminus' can be approached with a confidence level that would have been lacking on June 21st.

I'm concerned that the "terminus" may end up being merely a branch line.

kinabalu said:

ping said:

It’s odd, for a betting site, that so many posters are so uncomfortable with uncertainty.

It’s ok to not yet know things.

And to plan on the basis that you don’t yet know things.

That’s what the government is doing, and for that, I applaud them.

I'm not able to applaud, since they've messed up so much, but I essentially agree with this. The delay is to allow greater certainty of the relationship between Delta and hospitals and vaccination levels. It's not a crazy decision. And if it turns out serious illness doesn't take off to the extent feared, well great, this should be welcomed rather than offered as proof the delay was wrong. Because it won't mean the delay was wrong. What it'll mean is the July 19th 'terminus' can be approached with a confidence level that would have been lacking on June 21st.

I think it was a pretty useful exercise to actually have models (and yes people will say the misuse/misrepresentation of the models) tested against the scenarios they were actually modelling. Ie. status quo situations.

kinabalu said:

ping said:

The Croatia Scotland game is going to be far more interesting than England Czech Rep

I want the draw for England. I prefer 2nd place in the group given how the last 16 looks.

You may get your wish. This is a game that, in a way, neither team will want to win. I've laid England at 1.6.

How the hell do Labour square that circle?

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1407358881395847173

Question.

Ok, so I’m three hours ahead of most of you, is it worth staying up until 1am when I know that England have qualified anyway, and I have to get up at 6:30 in the morning to go to work?

ping said:

I’m on Scotland/Croatia over 2.5 goals @1.92

I've laid Croatia. I don't think they are much cop.

contrarian said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

Dan Hodges' alleges that the labour candidate is facing homophobic attacks, Starmer is facing anti-semitic attacks, and yet labour are not responding because they don't want to upset a part of labour's base.

Surely Galloway isn't actually going to win though? He may enthuse a significant subsection of the electorate - i.e. the Muslim vote - but that's no more than, what, 15-20%? I can't see his appeal spreading much beyond that, and even in a tight three way tussle the winner is going to need over 30%.

He might hole the Lab campaign below the waterline, but he isn't going to win himself, surely?

Cookie said:

contrarian said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

Dan Hodges' alleges that the labour candidate is facing homophobic attacks, Starmer is facing anti-semitic attacks, and yet labour are not responding because they don't want to upset a part of labour's base.

Surely Galloway isn't actually going to win though? He may enthuse a significant subsection of the electorate - i.e. the Muslim vote - but that's no more than, what, 15-20%? I can't see his appeal spreading much beyond that, and even in a tight three way tussle the winner is going to need over 30%.

He might hole the Lab campaign below the waterline, but he isn't going to win himself, surely?

It seems unlikely but I suppose if people think that Galloway is the best way to stop the tories......

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

IMHO the betting strategy is to lay Labour. That covers off the moron doing what he’s done before, inflaming racial tensions and getting a lopsided turnout from certain ‘communities’.

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

IMHO the betting strategy is to lay Labour. That covers off the moron doing what he’s done before, inflaming racial tensions and getting a lopsided turnout from certain ‘communities’.

I watched one of Galloway's ads, and he is not just pitching for the votes of one community.

On the language issue there are 5 Dutch players with first names of Daley, Denzel, Cody, Memphis, and Quincy. I wonder where the influence came from?

isam said:

...

kinabalu said:

ping said:

It’s odd, for a betting site, that so many posters are so uncomfortable with uncertainty.

It’s ok to not yet know things.

And to plan on the basis that you don’t yet know things.

That’s what the government is doing, and for that, I applaud them.

I'm not able to applaud, since they've messed up so much, but I essentially agree with this. The delay is to allow greater certainty of the relationship between Delta and hospitals and vaccination levels. It's not a crazy decision. And if it turns out serious illness doesn't take off to the extent feared, well great, this should be welcomed rather than offered as proof the delay was wrong. Because it won't mean the delay was wrong. What it'll mean is the July 19th 'terminus' can be approached with a confidence level that would have been lacking on June 21st.

Yes, agreed. Tapering the end of restrictions cautiously is fair enough after the amount of hokey cokey we have had for the last 18 months

Or: Tapering the end of restrictions cautiously is not fair enough after the amount of hokey cokey we have had for the last 18 months

Cookie said:

contrarian said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

Dan Hodges' alleges that the labour candidate is facing homophobic attacks, Starmer is facing anti-semitic attacks, and yet labour are not responding because they don't want to upset a part of labour's base.

Surely Galloway isn't actually going to win though? He may enthuse a significant subsection of the electorate - i.e. the Muslim vote - but that's no more than, what, 15-20%? I can't see his appeal spreading much beyond that, and even in a tight three way tussle the winner is going to need over 30%.

He might hole the Lab campaign below the waterline, but he isn't going to win himself, surely?

If turnout is only 50% though, that 20% of the electorate he’s enthused to support him might be 40% of the vote on the day.

Black_Rook said:

ComRes: Con 44, Lab 30, LD 10

Just incredible....its like Labour is actually the ones in power, buggering up the border etc. Literally the Tories stay around 43%, and Labour just lose votes to the centre left parties.

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

I don't think a Galloway win is totally out of the question. He could win with 30% with a split vote.

Oh don't say that, Andy. Please.

Thing is, I can't ignore you on this one after your mightily impressive Amersham call.

But if he can win with 30% of the vote then he’s got to take a chunk of votes from the Tories. Which then also might improve Labour’s chances.

Sandpit said:

Cookie said:

contrarian said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

Dan Hodges' alleges that the labour candidate is facing homophobic attacks, Starmer is facing anti-semitic attacks, and yet labour are not responding because they don't want to upset a part of labour's base.

Surely Galloway isn't actually going to win though? He may enthuse a significant subsection of the electorate - i.e. the Muslim vote - but that's no more than, what, 15-20%? I can't see his appeal spreading much beyond that, and even in a tight three way tussle the winner is going to need over 30%.

He might hole the Lab campaign below the waterline, but he isn't going to win himself, surely?

If turnout is only 50% though, that 20% of the electorate he’s enthused to support him might be 40% of the vote on the day.

A Galloway win would be very bad news for Starmer, but it would also not be great for Johnson, I guess.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Black_Rook said:

ComRes: Con 44, Lab 30, LD 10

Just incredible....its like Labour is actually the ones in power, buggering up the border etc. Literally the Tories stay around 43%, and Labour just lose votes to the centre left parties.

Labour have given their deadly opponents carte blanche for 18 months. They have given a leader who is a complete anathema to their base more power than any tory leader since Churchill during the war.

It is hardly surprising supporters are jumping ship.

slade said:

On the language issue there are 5 Dutch players with first names of Daley, Denzel, Cody, Memphis, and Quincy. I wonder where the influence came from?

Denzel is Denzel Washington.

Cookie said:

Prediction for tonight:
Eng 0 - 0 Cze in an excrutiating battle which entertains no-one but allows England to nudge through to the next round
Sco 0 - 1 Cro in a match which eliminates the Scots in a some ludicrously unfortunate way.

You may be right, only 1 goal for England after 3 matches will be disappointing though and the fact that Kane was second fav to win Golden Boot pre-tournament was a laugh eh.

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

ping said:

The Croatia Scotland game is going to be far more interesting than England Czech Rep

I want the draw for England. I prefer 2nd place in the group given how the last 16 looks.

You may get your wish. This is a game that, in a way, neither team will want to win. I've laid England at 1.6.

One of my betting chestnuts. If both teams are happy with a draw, it's a draw.

But we have this Copenhagen thing now. So maybe not.

I give you England v Netherlands, Euro ‘96.

dixiedean said:

slade said:

On the language issue there are 5 Dutch players with first names of Daley, Denzel, Cody, Memphis, and Quincy. I wonder where the influence came from?

Denzel is Denzel Washington.

Not delboy’s mate?

geoffw said:

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

David Paton
@cricketwyvern
Do lockdowns save lives?

An important new NBER paper looks at impact of SIP (“shelter-in-place”) policies on excess mortality, i.e. including both deaths caused by Covid-19 AND deaths caused by lockdowns ...

David Paton
@cricketwyvern
·
4h
Replying to
@cricketwyvern

... The conclusion:

“we fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths.”

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1407297414038499334

Just skimmed the paper, the methodology looks absolute garbage designed to get a pre determined result

Not at all. It is a serious analysis by the authors and Paton's conclusion is:
"Whatever the explanation, this key message should be headline news in every media outlet & repeated at the start of every Cabinet & SAGE meeting from now on:
*we fail to find that shelter-in-place policies saved lives*

It is deigned to setup shelter-in-place to fail.

I read the abstract and thought I must have misunderstood what they were analysising. But reading the paper shows I was not mistaken unless it is buried in the detail.

All they have shown is that states and counties hit by the pandemic had excess deaths. They have very carefully chosen their constraints so that there was no way of showing lockdowns had a positive effect.

contrarian said:

Sandpit said:

Cookie said:

contrarian said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

Dan Hodges' alleges that the labour candidate is facing homophobic attacks, Starmer is facing anti-semitic attacks, and yet labour are not responding because they don't want to upset a part of labour's base.

Surely Galloway isn't actually going to win though? He may enthuse a significant subsection of the electorate - i.e. the Muslim vote - but that's no more than, what, 15-20%? I can't see his appeal spreading much beyond that, and even in a tight three way tussle the winner is going to need over 30%.

He might hole the Lab campaign below the waterline, but he isn't going to win himself, surely?

If turnout is only 50% though, that 20% of the electorate he’s enthused to support him might be 40% of the vote on the day.

A Galloway win would be very bad news for Starmer, but it would also not be great for Johnson, I guess.

I'm now expecting LP to lose Batley and Spen which will shorten the price for Starmer to lose leadership in 2021 - currently a lay at 5 with BF. I've already been chipping away at this bet but will top up mightily if it shortens.

Worst case scenario for this bet is that later in year he signals he is picking up sticks but will remain leader until a replacement is found. This will take over 3 months as per previous leadership contests, possibly dragging it into 2022.

Laying Starmer leaving in 2021 is a gift IMO. My favourite politics bet at the moment.

StuartDickson said:

rpjs said:

StuartDickson said:

Leon said:

Besides the content, check the language on this Dutch tweet. There is so much English in it, she is basically speaking English

I’ve seen the same in Sweden and Denmark. I wonder if these smaller European languages will survive for much longer. The urge to talk - certainly online - in plain English, and finally abandon Dutch, must be intense. You instantly get a vastly bigger audience, and you’re already halfway there


‘Peter Daszak, lid vh WHO-team dat in China herkomst coronavirus onderzocht, heeft nu fuller disclosure gegeven over financiering door non-profit waarvan hij president is en dat eerder onderzoek van het Wuhanlab financieerde, recent onthuld door Vanity Fair.’

https://twitter.com/askimono/status/1407256417275371520?s=21

Swedish will extinct within a hundred years. The propensity to gleefully abandon perfectly good Swedish words and phrases for English (sometimes pseudo-English) ones is astonishing. Anyone who objects is ridiculed as a fuddy duddy who’s not down with the kids. It is part of the infamous “opinion corridor”.

Strong disagree. I work for a Swedish company (whose employees trend young) and have visited Stockholm several times now. Swedish remains the language Swedish people talk to each other in in non-business contexts at work and while socializing. So what if it acquires English loan words? (Insert obligatory ref to James Nicoll's screed on the "purity" of English itself.) That's what languages do.

It's the languages like French that have strongly conservative "governing bodies" always on the lookout to strike out any furrin innovations that are more likely to ossify and die in the long run.

Swedish has such a body.

Incidentally, are you a fluent Swedish speaker? You might not realise the startling anglicisation going on.

No, I am not. But my point is that taking vocabulary from another language is not of itself a sign of concern. Now, if you think Swedish grammar is anglicising, that could be a different matter.

contrarian said:

Laurence Fox and Reclaim will be holding a public meeting at Batley Market on Thursday for an 'honest debate' on free speech and the Batley Grammar incident.

The Woollens guy will be there, Galloway will be speaking and the other candidates have been invited

What could possibly go wrong?

NerysHughes said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Black_Rook said:

ComRes: Con 44, Lab 30, LD 10

Con 44 (+3) Lab 30 (-4) LD 10 (+2) Grn 5 (-1) SNP 4 (-1) Other 6 (-1)

18th - 20th June

What hoped has Starmer got if he loses B & S

Has a party ever been on 44% after11 years in Government after four elections?

Has a Party ever had 11 years in government after 4 elections? 19th Century I reckon.
So probably not.

Cookie said:

Prediction for tonight:
Eng 0 - 0 Cze in an excrutiating battle which entertains no-one but allows England to nudge through to the next round
Sco 0 - 1 Cro in a match which eliminates the Scots in a some ludicrously unfortunate way.

Too emphatic - surely the Scots game will be a draw with Scotland having a sumptuous winning goal chalked off for offside by a micrometre on VAR

NerysHughes said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Black_Rook said:

ComRes: Con 44, Lab 30, LD 10

Con 44 (+3) Lab 30 (-4) LD 10 (+2) Grn 5 (-1) SNP 4 (-1) Other 6 (-1)

18th - 20th June

What hoped has Starmer got if he loses B & S

Has a party ever been on 44% after11 years in Government after four elections?

The conservatives have had 6 x 45% plus 2 x 46% since the locals

On topic, God no. NO!

UNCOALITIONABLE should become unacceptable as using the N word.

contrarian said:

rottenborough said:

David Paton
@cricketwyvern
Do lockdowns save lives?

An important new NBER paper looks at impact of SIP (“shelter-in-place”) policies on excess mortality, i.e. including both deaths caused by Covid-19 AND deaths caused by lockdowns ...

David Paton
@cricketwyvern
·
4h
Replying to
@cricketwyvern

... The conclusion:

“we fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths.”

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1407297414038499334

Another PB treasured myth bites the dust.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28930/w28930.pdf

Quoting the paper: “we would expect lower excess mortality in the weeks following SIP implementation in countries that implemented SIP policies relative to countries that did not implement policies”

Err. No.

You would not expect mortality to drop after lockdown starts (whether officially or not) for at least 2 weeks, because that’s how long it usually took for someone to get Covid & die from it on average. Oh, and that’s from being symptomatic -> death. Covid has a relatively long asymptomatic period (which is why it’s so infectious), so the probable mean time from infection -> death is probably closer to three weeks.

So we do not expect the death rate to drop after the introduction of lockdowns for /at least/ three weeks, if not longer, during which time the death rate will rise at first due to infections that occurred shortly before the lockdown started (that might otherwise have beenb avoided).

Unless I have got this very wrong & missed something crucial (entirely possible!), this entire paper is based on a complete misunderstanding of the timing of Covid deaths: They’ve found a spurious association between lockdowns and excess deaths, because we brought in lockdowns when covid infections were rising exponentially & those infections led to excess deaths that occurred during the lockdown period due to the lag time between infection & patient death.

If they were comparing excess deaths three-four weeks after lockdowns started then that might be a more appropriate comparison.

(I’d like to see a model that included the local R rate for each locality, estimated either from excess deaths or known covid infections & incorporated into an estimate of the number of expected deaths from Covid; that ought to show whether lockdowns “work” or not, given sufficient data.)

Cookie said:

I'vebet on Cz to win, with a backup bet of 0-0. I finding inconceivable that England will win on ITV.

If you delete the ITV many would still agree

contrarian said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

Dan Hodges alleges that the labour candidate is facing homophobic attacks, Starmer is facing anti-semitic attacks, and yet labour are not responding because they don't want to upset a part of labour's base.

This is what happens if you court voters with totally different moral values.

O/T - Can someone explain to me why discussions of white privilege which really only started in the UK in the last few years is the reason why white working class children have had poor educational outcomes for decades?

Am I missing something major or are people talking shite?

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NerysHughes said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Black_Rook said:

ComRes: Con 44, Lab 30, LD 10

Con 44 (+3) Lab 30 (-4) LD 10 (+2) Grn 5 (-1) SNP 4 (-1) Other 6 (-1)

18th - 20th June

What hoped has Starmer got if he loses B & S

Has a party ever been on 44% after11 years in Government after four elections?

Yes.

In the high 40s peaking at 49% after 11 years in power and three general elections.

I also have another government at 42% after 11 years in power and three general elections.

Japan, Singapore?

Nope, the UK.

TheScreamingEagles said:

O/T - Can someone explain to me why discussions of white privilege which really only started in the UK in the last few years is the reason why white working class children have had poor educational outcomes for decades?

Am I missing something major or are people talking shite?

It's almost as if social class, and social deprivation make a huge impact on educational outcomes 🤔

geoffw said:

Alistair said:

rottenborough said:

David Paton
@cricketwyvern
Do lockdowns save lives?

An important new NBER paper looks at impact of SIP (“shelter-in-place”) policies on excess mortality, i.e. including both deaths caused by Covid-19 AND deaths caused by lockdowns ...

David Paton
@cricketwyvern
·
4h
Replying to
@cricketwyvern

... The conclusion:

“we fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths.”

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1407297414038499334

Just skimmed the paper, the methodology looks absolute garbage designed to get a pre determined result

Not at all. It is a serious analysis by the authors and Paton's conclusion is:
"Whatever the explanation, this key message should be headline news in every media outlet & repeated at the start of every Cabinet & SAGE meeting from now on:
*we fail to find that shelter-in-place policies saved lives*

I see they've uncovered the staggering conclusion that in the immediate couple or three weeks after lockdowns are implemented, deaths continue rising and then fall slowly.

Almost as if there's a 2-3 week lag between infections and deaths.

Someone must be told.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Labour's problem Starmer or is it all the Labour numpties that pop up in the media? Starmer isn't exactly exciting, but I can't quite get my head around how he has made Labour so unpopular, especially against Boris who is shall we say divisive. 30% is absolute bedrock for Labour and Tory.

It’s that he’s been totally invisible, only popping up to make jibes in hindsight or on irrelevancies, spending six question on wallpaper when hundreds of people were dying

There’s millions of people who oppose the government’s actions one way or another, including a bunch of Tory MPs. LotO’s job is to find a way of bringing a vote on something that unites opponents of the government.

He’s also, necessarily, alienated quite a bit of his own party’s previous support. He now needs to understand that his route to power is 70 or 80 seats currently held by the Tories, needs to work out policies that will appeal to them and push them hard.

alex_ said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

Black_Rook said:

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andy_JS said:

Interesting movements in the Betfair Exchange betting for Batley & Spen.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.183248116

Can you explain please.

I do not know anything about betting sadly

George Galloway was 60/1 yesterday. Now he's somewhere between 15/1 and 25/1, although the numbers are changing all the time. Of course whether this reflects reality is another matter. It may just be punters messing about, so to speak.

Punters gambling on a total Labour collapse. One wouldn't have thought an actual win for Galloway possible with anything less.

I don't think a Galloway win is totally out of the question. He could win with 30% with a split vote.

Oh don't say that, Andy. Please.

Thing is, I can't ignore you on this one after your mightily impressive Amersham call.

But if he can win with 30% of the vote then he’s got to take a chunk of votes from the Tories. Which then also might improve Labour’s chances.

He's a hard left, hard right, unwoke, BritNat, with a nod to antisemitism. Something for everyone there. But what he really is, of course, is a narcissist who gurns for attention.

TheScreamingEagles said:

O/T - Can someone explain to me why discussions of white privilege which really only started in the UK in the last few years is the reason why white working class children have had poor educational outcomes for decades?

Am I missing something major or are people talking shite?

The latter. Big time.

Philip_Thompson said:

Incidentally when we went to the Disneystore last week absolutely everything we looked at had a discount price sticker on it. 30% to 70% off everything.

Figured that was just because the store had been closed for so long that they had lots of stock to clear, but perhaps its an unofficial closing down sale?

No Chinese or Arab tourists.