Starmer has better than a 13.9% chance of being next PM – politicalbetting.com

kinabalu said:

Let's vary Stocky's puzzle. Same scenario except there's just the one bag!

A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.

B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.

What is A now?

I'm assuming that if your first draw isn't green, you don't put the ball back as otherwise it's the same puzzle.

P(lose) = 3/4 * 2/3 = 1/2

Alistair said:

<

CarlottaVance said:

The BBC brings facts to the party:

Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor
More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.

Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.

The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.

The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.

An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59934070

Have they used reporting date data to get that? Because the uk.gov dashboard isn't up to 6th of Jan yet and is under 2000 for England currently.

More importantly are the case numbers on the same basis - England and Wales are not since Wales includes reinfections and England cases are actually the number who have been knowingly affected by Covid at least once.
What do Scotland cases show ?

TimT said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.

The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.

By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

Define "white".

White, non Hispanic

Italians? Greeks? Turks? Syrians? Egyptians? Where does the line get drawn?

Are these people white?

https://www.suchtv.pk/media/k2/items/cache/0290496b32c9ca27d6b78debee5bd71d_XL.jpg

Italians and Greeks mainly are, Turks, Syrians and Egyptians mainly are not

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Thread on Chinese COVID quarantine camps:

https://twitter.com/songpinganq/status/1480157037681995779?s=20

China is continuing to take its Covid approach very seriously...

https://twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1443965583276584963?s=20

Similar to the quarantine camp in Camus's the Plague.

Plus ca change...

The Winter Olympics are going to be a barrel of joy, aren't they?

Farooq said:

Gardenwalker said:

TimT said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.

The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.

By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

You sound like a white supremacist who thinks that only 100% white is white. I'm not saying you are: just that it sounds like it.

What about someome whose mother was long-term UK white and father Black Jamaican? Is she white or black? And if neither, why don't you score her as 50% for your arithmetic?

And I - pale and pallid except for my freckles - could well be 1/128 or 1/256 Black for all I know. Do you deduct that bit for me?

It's like gender, innit? It's how you self-identify.

I am constantly amazed at how 'black' is defined in the US. I think for some, 1/256 would do it.

I’m looking forward to these racial perversities.
Although maybe in New York I will be protected from them.

Strictly speaking, I am “mixed race”, as of course are my children. Not that it’s possible to tell.

Concepts such a mixed race, for me, rely on the concept of racial purity. That is, to be mixed race there must be other people who are not mixed race. I don't think the concept of racial purity is either helpful or interesting.

Yes. I've always wondered how the DNA origins testing works in that respect, as it presumably has to assume that there are some reference populations with homogenous antecedents, and/or a time you can go back to before which there were no population movements.

Not very likely, though perhaps you can get close enough for a rough idea.

HYUFD said:

TimT said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.

The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.

By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

Define "white".

White, non Hispanic

Italians? Greeks? Turks? Syrians? Egyptians? Where does the line get drawn?

Are these people white?

https://www.suchtv.pk/media/k2/items/cache/0290496b32c9ca27d6b78debee5bd71d_XL.jpg

Italians and Greeks mainly are, Turks, Syrians and Egyptians mainly are not

In a few centuries most people will be a bit of everything, assuming we haven't killed each other in the meantime. It was inevitable once the jet engine was invented. I don't know why this prospect bothers anybody.

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.

The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.

By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

Define "white".

White, non Hispanic

Define Hispanic!

That was an interesting NPR show on just this topic last week. The two hosts concluded that it was not a very useful term, and it would be far better to refer to more specific groups, like Ricans, or Hondurans - as white, indigenous and black Hondurans have more in common with each other than black Hondurans have with black Ricans, for example. And certainly more in common than with native born African Americans.

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

The BBC brings facts to the party:

Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor
More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.

Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.

The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.

The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.

An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59934070

Scotland restrictions working at preventing the escape of Omicron cases from high prevalence Scotland to low prevalence England?

(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)

It's a question of onus. I think that the onus is on those who seek to restrict liberty to make the case for more severe restrictions. They can do this by:
(a) demonstrating a clear benefit (nope)
(b) explaining that the threat is so severe in terms of hospital admissions that precautionary measures are necessary (nope).
(c) identifying some risk factors that are more severe in Scotland than in England (nope).

If they fail to do this then the nonsense of stopping sporting events being watched by more than 500 supporters, the closing of nightclubs, table service in bars and 2m restrictions in public buildings needs to stop. Now. Even if that means we look like we are copying England and were wrong to be so overly cautious.

Nicola has got her "different to the English" policy done, the wind down of restrictions in Scotland will start soon, she's too smart to be caught in the trap of people seeing everything fully open in England but some restrictions in Scotland with little to no difference in the infection rate. She'll call it a worthwhile precaution to protect the NHS or something along those lines but I would be shocked if the restrictions in Scotland last beyond the end of next week.

She's chasing a moving target though. Boris is going to 5 days isolation soon. Does she try to jump ahead or follow on again like she did with the 10>7 days?

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

I meant the Borough not the seat. @eek was referencing the May elections.

On that you are right, if the Royal Borough went Labour it would suggest Starmer was heading for most seats at least. Though I think Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster will stay Tory even if Barnet and Wandsworth go Labour

I think Labour winning K&C would mean rather more than that. The Conservatives have controlled K&C since its creation in 1964. Even in the mid-90s, the Conservatives retained control comfortably and have never, I believe, polled less than 50% in any Borough election.

In 2018 the Conservatives won 36 seats with 51.4% of the vote and Labour won 13 on 33%.

Westminster has also been solidly Conservative since 1964 though in 2018 they polled 42.8% to Labour's 41.1% while Wandsworth has been Conservative since 1978.

LostPassword said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Let's vary Stocky's puzzle. Same scenario except there's just the one bag!

A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.

B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.

What is A now?

With or without replacement? 7/12 without replacement (1/4 + 1/3). 1/2 with (1/4 + 1/4).

Adding probabilities is dangerous and likely to lead you awry, as here.

Without replacement, the probability of not picking green is 3/4 * 2/3 = 6/12 = 1/2

With replacement, the probability of not picking green is 3/4 * 3/4 = 9/16 (as in the original scenario as replacement replicates two identical bags)

Yep, I cocked up. Can see it easily running the possibilities:

Replacement possibilities:

RR 0
RG 1
RB 0
RY 0
GR 1
GG 1
GB 1
GR 1
YR 0
YG 1
YB 0
YY 0
BR 0
BG 1
BB 0
BY 0

(1 = win, 0 = lose). 7/16 as you and turbotubbs (and, latterly, me, stated)

Non-replacement possibilities:

RG 1
RB 0
RY 0
GR 1
GB 1
GR 1
YR 0
YG 1
YB 0
BR 0
BG 1
BY 0

6/12 = 1/2

The approach of working out probability of both losing makes a lot more sense. I didn't allow for conditionality, which was silly after arguing with our piratical friend about that earlier.

There's a reason I work with numerical models than arithmetic solutions

Farooq said:

Now suppose the Romanian lives in Italy, and the Greek is resident in Cairo. The Spaniard is on a whaling ship off the coast of Greenland. And there's a goat behind the third door. What colour is the bear?

A delicate shade of mauve.

Selebian said:

The approach of working out probability of both losing makes a lot more sense.

One thing they taught me at school is that in these situations, the easier calculation is very often 1 minus the inverse of what the question asks for.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Let's vary Stocky's puzzle. Same scenario except there's just the one bag!

A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.

B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.

What is A now?

Bit desperate tbh to try to show you know your maths. We never doubted you.

"maths" - lol.

Ouch. Please stop digging. You went to Imperial IIRC; you have nothing to prove.

Just struck by "maths" there. Very sweet.

Absolutely of course you were. I feel suitably patronised if that helps.

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Let's vary Stocky's puzzle. Same scenario except there's just the one bag!

A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.

B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.

What is A now?

With or without replacement? 7/12 without replacement (1/4 + 1/3). 1/2 with (1/4 + 1/4).

I meant without. So, looks like it's A now. Different answer entirely!

But with no time to calculate would you instinctively still go with B if faced with the choice in real life, ie with the bag right there in front of you and, say, £10k up for grabs?

Or do you think you'd just *know* it was A?

Or would you be paralyzed by indecision?

As demonstrated, I'd quickly do the maths in my head and pick the wrong bag!

144,224 - 2332 Admissions - 77 deaths

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

I meant the Borough not the seat. @eek was referencing the May elections.

On that you are right, if the Royal Borough went Labour it would suggest Starmer was heading for most seats at least. Though I think Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster will stay Tory even if Barnet and Wandsworth go Labour

I think Labour winning K&C would mean rather more than that. The Conservatives have controlled K&C since its creation in 1964. Even in the mid-90s, the Conservatives retained control comfortably and have never, I believe, polled less than 50% in any Borough election.

In 2018 the Conservatives won 36 seats with 51.4% of the vote and Labour won 13 on 33%.

Westminster has also been solidly Conservative since 1964 though in 2018 they polled 42.8% to Labour's 41.1% while Wandsworth has been Conservative since 1978.

If Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster went Labour then yes Boris would face a VONC. However if they stayed Tory despite losses elsewhere in London in areas like Wandsworth and Barnet he would probably not face a VONC.

Remember every MP in Wandsworth is already Labour

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

TimT said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.

The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.

By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

Define "white".

White, non Hispanic

Italians? Greeks? Turks? Syrians? Egyptians? Where does the line get drawn?

Are these people white?

https://www.suchtv.pk/media/k2/items/cache/0290496b32c9ca27d6b78debee5bd71d_XL.jpg

Italians and Greeks mainly are, Turks, Syrians and Egyptians mainly are not

In a few centuries most people will be a bit of everything, assuming we haven't killed each other in the meantime. It was inevitable once the jet engine was invented. I don't know why this prospect bothers anybody.

Only in the West and Latin America and maybe the Western Cape in South Africa.

Most of Africa will still be Black however, most of the Middle East will still be Arab, most of India will still be Hindu and most of the Far East will still be Oriental. Russia and Eastern Europe will also still be the last region to be majority white

You do seem committed to those categories.

Farooq said:

You have a Greek, an Italian, a Turk, an Egyptian, a Syrian, a Kalash, an Inuit, a Romanian, an Icelander, and a Spaniard in a bag. What's the odds of drawing a single white person out in one go. What about at least one from two goes, and what about two from two?

Now suppose the Romanian lives in Italy, and the Greek is resident in Cairo. The Spaniard is on a whaling ship off the coast of Greenland. And there's a goat behind the third door. What colour is the bear?

Easy. Blue, waving a UJ.

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Let's vary Stocky's puzzle. Same scenario except there's just the one bag!

A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.

B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.

What is A now?

I have 0.4975 for A vs 0.50 for B. So just B.

(Above assumes that the first counter pulled out is not replaced in the bag.)

NB: The question involves two bags (Bag 1 and Bag 2), both identical and with four counters in each. I also assumed a single bag with two dips on first reading, but it is two independent and identical bags, which leads to 7/16 for Option A and 8/16 for Option B. Replacement is irrelevant as in every option you only dip into any bag once.

IshmaelZ said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

TimT said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/is-the-us-really-heading-for-a-second-civil-war

Interesting piece on the prospects for a second US Civil War. The tldr; version is that a full on war is unlikely but a Northern Ireland kind of situation is possible. Scary.

It’s a decent piece. A civil war is not at all likely; but increased political violence (insurgency) is surely very possible.

The key, as the piece notes, is that in 2045 whites are due to become a minority in the US. This fact seems rather irrelevant in comfortably white Britain, but it must feel very ominous to many here.

By 2100 the only nations which will still definitely be majority white are likely to be Russia, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Though whites will still likely be a plurality in Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

Define "white".

White, non Hispanic

Italians? Greeks? Turks? Syrians? Egyptians? Where does the line get drawn?

Are these people white?

https://www.suchtv.pk/media/k2/items/cache/0290496b32c9ca27d6b78debee5bd71d_XL.jpg

Italians and Greeks mainly are, Turks, Syrians and Egyptians mainly are not

In a few centuries most people will be a bit of everything, assuming we haven't killed each other in the meantime. It was inevitable once the jet engine was invented. I don't know why this prospect bothers anybody.

No particular reason that should be true. All sorts of countries have managed to maintain caste and racial segregation for centuries where jet engines were irrelevant as everybody was in the same place from the start.

Is that true? You have the caste system in India I suppose, but would DNA analysis show the different groups to be completely distinct? Struggling to think of other examples (lots of "white" people in the US have plenty of other stuff in their ancestry if their forebears have spent a lot of time there, and IIRC most "black" Americans are not of 100% African descent). People have a tendency to mix even when there are legal or other barriers put up to prevent it, and even so more if there aren't.

dixiedean said:

You have a Greek, an Italian, a Turk, an Egyptian, a Syrian, a Kalash, an Inuit, a Romanian, an Icelander, and a Spaniard go into a bar.
Bouncer says "You can't come in without a Thai."

Iceland was of course one of the last places to be settled by humans; assorted Scandinavians, a bit of Irish, some Hebridean. It's even more mixed up now.
And the waves of immigration into Iberia must have resulted in a real pot-pourri of DNA!

UK R

HYUFD said:

If Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster went Labour then yes Boris would face a VONC. However if they stayed Tory despite losses elsewhere in London in areas like Wandsworth and Barnet he would probably not face a VONC.

Remember every MP in Wandsworth is already Labour

I'm sure you're right - the advantage is I cannot conceive of either Kensington & Chelsea or Westminster going Labour. The south of K&C is Conservative heartland - I could see the Conservative majority in Westminster being cut by three or four but that's all.

I do think Wandsworth and Barnet are much more problematic for the Conservatives - the former more than the latter I would suggest. Hillingdon might be interesting - the north of the Borough is strongly Conservative, the south strongly Labour and the Conservatives did well here last time making a net gain of 2 seats.

I think the Conservatives will hold the seat comfortably - Labour didn't win the Charville by-election in arguably the most marginal Conservative seat in May. Even with the change in political fortunes since then, I can really only see 6 Labour gains maximum.

I think the Conservatives might surprise in London and send up with a small net gain of seats.

FrancisUrquhart said:

turbotubbs said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

144,224 - 2332 Admissions - 77 deaths

England mechanical beds still flat.

Its more comfortable for the patients that way...

Have you been saving that gag up?

No, but I'm bored reading student lit reviews, and it just came to me!

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

kinabalu said:

Let's vary Stocky's puzzle. Same scenario except there's just the one bag!

A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.

B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.

What is A now?

Bit desperate tbh to try to show you know your maths. We never doubted you.

"maths" - lol.

Ouch. Please stop digging. You went to Imperial IIRC; you have nothing to prove.

What's wrong with Imperial??

Deaths

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

The BBC brings facts to the party:

Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor
More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.

Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.

The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.

The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.

An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59934070

Scotland restrictions working at preventing the escape of Omicron cases from high prevalence Scotland to low prevalence England?

(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)

It's a question of onus. I think that the onus is on those who seek to restrict liberty to make the case for more severe restrictions. They can do this by:
(a) demonstrating a clear benefit (nope)
(b) explaining that the threat is so severe in terms of hospital admissions that precautionary measures are necessary (nope).
(c) identifying some risk factors that are more severe in Scotland than in England (nope).

If they fail to do this then the nonsense of stopping sporting events being watched by more than 500 supporters, the closing of nightclubs, table service in bars and 2m restrictions in public buildings needs to stop. Now. Even if that means we look like we are copying England and were wrong to be so overly cautious.

Nicola has got her "different to the English" policy done, the wind down of restrictions in Scotland will start soon, she's too smart to be caught in the trap of people seeing everything fully open in England but some restrictions in Scotland with little to no difference in the infection rate. She'll call it a worthwhile precaution to protect the NHS or something along those lines but I would be shocked if the restrictions in Scotland last beyond the end of next week.

She's chasing a moving target though. Boris is going to 5 days isolation soon. Does she try to jump ahead or follow on again like she did with the 10>7 days?

Wait to see if she sarcastically rubbishes a journalist first for daring to have the temerity to ask such a question.....

Age related data

dixiedean said:

I see we are already on an only elections which matter are London Boroughs trip a bit early this year.
Suppose Labour swept Inner London, but lost most of the WM and S Yorkshire too.
Would Boris face a VONC? Or are they intrinsically less important?

I wouldn't claim they are the only elections that matter by any stretch.

I live in London and can bring far more insight to London local elections than I can elsewhere.

IshmaelZ said:

Roger said:

OT. David McClenaghan seems determined to do the impossible and give lawyers a bad name. Trying to wangle money out of Manchester City must be tempting for a lawyer though under the circumstances pretty ludicrous. The connection between the club and McClenaghan's clients seems to non existent except that the club have money.

And insurance.

I don't know if it is true but it is said that the Mississippi Pilots Association had a rule that all pilots must have 3rd party liability insurance, and everybody sued them, so they dropped the rule because premiums became unaffordable, and nobody sued them.

I doubt MCFC would have needed to bother their insurance companies. At least the old ambulance chasers knew that the mighty NHS was at the end of their rainbow. This new breed seem to be looking for anyone with money. Maybe the judge wasn't told how it works?

del.

BlancheLivermore said:

Selebian said:

Farooq said:

Selebian said:

Farooq said:

You have a Greek, an Italian, a Turk, an Egyptian, a Syrian, a Kalash, an Inuit, a Romanian, an Icelander, and a Spaniard in a bag. What's the odds of drawing a single white person out in one go. What about at least one from two goes, and what about two from two?

Now suppose the Romanian lives in Italy, and the Greek is resident in Cairo. The Spaniard is on a whaling ship off the coast of Greenland. And there's a goat behind the third door. What colour is the bear?

Mornington Crescent

Which is exactly equidistant from White City and Blackfriars.

So the bear is a grey, religious media luvvy?

No. Like I said it's fifty fifty; it's a panda.

But when you open the box it's already died.

That's a different cat-egory of problem.

stodge said:

dixiedean said:

I see we are already on an only elections which matter are London Boroughs trip a bit early this year.
Suppose Labour swept Inner London, but lost most of the WM and S Yorkshire too.
Would Boris face a VONC? Or are they intrinsically less important?

I wouldn't claim they are the only elections that matter by any stretch.

I live in London and can bring far more insight to London local elections than I can elsewhere.

Fair enough. My comment was more aimed at a poster who doesn't.
However. It is a repetitive theme of the media that Wandsworth, Westminster, Kensington and Barnet are of vital superimportance.
Much larger Metro boroughs elsewhere barely merit a mention.

UK cases down for fifth day in a row. England hospitalisations still flat. London hospitalisations down for eight days in a row. All good

But big rise in numbers in hospital to 17,120 - sounds like its getting ever harder to discharge patients as care homes / local NHS struggle
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1480582039401287687

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Let's vary Stocky's puzzle. Same scenario except there's just the one bag!

A: 2 dips and win if you pick green with either.
B: 1 dip and win if it's either green or yellow.

B is still a 50% chance of winning obvs.

What is A now?

With or without replacement? 7/12 without replacement (1/4 + 1/3). 1/2 with (1/4 + 1/4).

I meant without. So, looks like it's A now. Different answer entirely!

But with no time to calculate would you instinctively still go with B if faced with the choice in real life, ie with the bag right there in front of you and, say, £10k up for grabs?

Or do you think you'd just *know* it was A?

Or would you be paralyzed by indecision?

As demonstrated, I'd quickly do the maths in my head and pick the wrong bag!

Like a golfer who can hole the long ones but misses the odd two footer.

It's a great way to be.

Scott_xP said:

UK cases down for fifth day in a row. England hospitalisations still flat. London hospitalisations down for eight days in a row. All good

But big rise in numbers in hospital to 17,120 - sounds like its getting ever harder to discharge patients as care homes / local NHS struggle
https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1480582039401287687

England case rates per 100,000 on the 9th January

251.2

Scotland case rates per 100,000 on the 9th January

260.4

Despite stricter restrictions in Scotland

DavidL said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

The BBC brings facts to the party:

Covid restrictions in Scotland are working, insists advisor
More now from Scotland’s national clinical director, who’s been telling the BBC that Covid restrictions in place across Scotland are helping to reduce the spread of the Omicron variant.

Prof Jason Leitch says measures such as the closure of nightclubs are making a difference.

The Scottish government has faced criticism that the rules are too tough.

The latest Scottish government Covid report shows average daily cases in Scotland (2,824 per one million population in the week to 6 January) were higher than in England (2,615 per one million) which has fewer Covid restrictions.

An update on Covid rules in Scotland will be given by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood tomorrow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59934070

Scotland restrictions working at preventing the escape of Omicron cases from high prevalence Scotland to low prevalence England?

(I jest, hopefully obviously - without a good counterfactual there's little point trying to link case numbers to restrictions. Generally places with fewest cases have had fewest restrictions and there's a clear positive correlation between more restrictions and more cases, but the causality seems unlikely!)

It's a question of onus. I think that the onus is on those who seek to restrict liberty to make the case for more severe restrictions. They can do this by:
(a) demonstrating a clear benefit (nope)
(b) explaining that the threat is so severe in terms of hospital admissions that precautionary measures are necessary (nope).
(c) identifying some risk factors that are more severe in Scotland than in England (nope).

If they fail to do this then the nonsense of stopping sporting events being watched by more than 500 supporters, the closing of nightclubs, table service in bars and 2m restrictions in public buildings needs to stop. Now. Even if that means we look like we are copying England and were wrong to be so overly cautious.

To be honest neither Scotland nor England are applying particularly onerous restrictions. The difference is at the margins and doesn't significantly impact that many people. I agree they still have to be justified. Your point (a) is nearly impossible to prove one way or the other on the counterfactual. The restrictions will have an effect, but is the effect big enough to justify the restriction? (b) I think applies in principle - ie it applies but isn't sufficient to determine the scale of the restrctions - and (c) is irrelevant.

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Good for Djoko (so far). I think we all agree that we want him to take part in the Australian Open and win it.

Top (Topping?) trolling.

Many questions arise from this: if he's been stuck in a hotel room and unable to do his usual pre-match practice, he's less likely to be able to win compared to opponents who've had their normal practice. Might he be able to sue the government for their illegal detention's effect on his career and winnings?

Good point there's that as well. Go Djoko!

Seriously. He has made a decision and he is going to stand or fall by it. What's the big deal with everyone having a conniption fit over it.

A Cummings-esque episode I think. These guys assume rules are for little people, assumption is tested, they are indeed a class apart from the little people; then they rub it in.

He seems pretty comprehensively to be subject to due process. Which seems to be ongoing including the possibility that he will be told to leave Australia.

He has a job to do there and is trying to do it.

Sure. That's why the visa challenge failed. The Australian immigration people didn't follow their own process.

Djokovic's case is that he was unable to get the required vaccination on medical grounds because he had the virus at the time the purported vaccination was due to take place. This is not a convincing explanation given his well aired objections to vaccination.

But why does that make him think he is a class apart.

He is allowed to have any view on vaccination he wants and people/border forces/legal systems are allowed to respond.

And for whatever reason not wanting to have a vaccination is an entirely logical position to hold.

Don't disagree with your last two comments. Same applies to Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. The general public can also come to the conclusion these people are making fools of them.

Oh absolutely. But Djoko isn't putting himself up for election; he must content himself with being arguably the best tennis player on the planet (and actually the best tennis player in the world by current ranking). And he can hold whatever views he wants AFAIC.

As I said it is bringing about an in my view unpleasant curtain-twitching from the PB Covid watchers.

Cummings wasn't and never will be putting himself up for election, hilarious as I would find that prospect.

Still, you're right, PBers expressing opinions on the extracurricular behaviour of sportspeople is a shocking new development.

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

COVID summary

Cases - Are rising (some missing data from the regions), but R is plunging towards 1.0. North East is still seeing more of the wave, but that is beginning to fade as well.
Admissions - Are bouncing around, but R is heading downward. North East is the area seeing a definite rise still - but is the only region in England to do so.
MV beds - level(ish)
Death - rising slowly.

I suspect the deaths picture is still very skewed by Christmas reporting lags because the underlying trend, smoothed over a couple of weeks, has definitely been down (from around 130 per day to closer to 80-90). I also suspect - though can't be sure - that a lot of the reported deaths will be Delta still.

The stats on Omicron severity as well as the ventilated patient data suggest to me that deaths should continue to fall as Delta patients leave the system.

It is interesting that the hospitalisations are fading almost as fast as the cases - not much of a lag at all..

RedfieldWilton

Westminster Voting Intention (10 Jan):

Labour 39% (+1)
Conservative 35% (–)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+2)
Green 5% (–)
Scottish National Party 4% (-1)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Other 1% (-1)

Changes +/- 3 Jan

Malmesbury said:

Pulpstar said:

Malmesbury said:

COVID summary

Cases - Are rising (some missing data from the regions), but R is plunging towards 1.0. North East is still seeing more of the wave, but that is beginning to fade as well.
Admissions - Are bouncing around, but R is heading downward. North East is the area seeing a definite rise still - but is the only region in England to do so.
MV beds - level(ish)
Death - rising slowly.

England

10-01-2022 115,998
03-01-2022 137,541

09-01-2022 121,228
02-01-2022 123,547

08-01-2022 130,330
01-01-2022 162,572

07-01-2022 149,405
31-12-2021 160,276

Four days of week on week days by reported drop in England now, the most up to date metric (Other nations by reported is a bit wonky for this analysis due to multiple day dumps).

The data by specimen date shows that the probably top of the curve *might* be between the 29th and the 4th. Reporting day is especially all over the place at the moment.



The more detailed localised data is still just up to the 4th....

In England the 4th was the peak day by specimen date. That series wil start registering some reasonable falls over the next few days, it already has for the 5th compared to the 29th.

With reporting day we might actually see a fair bit of catch up in England over the next few days as the testing system is able to catch up with the number of samples. By the end of this week the lag in the system might have reduced a lot so we could see some rises in reported cases but still falling by specimen date as the 6 day backfill is lumped in with a reduction in reporting lag to 3 days.

Malmesbury said:

dixiedean said:

Think we can safely say the plague has moved North.

Even in the North East, the admissions look like this. Elsewhere, flat or falling, in England

Looks to me that every region has peaked now.
The consensus is the 7 day average figure, and there was a big drop when the figures from the 29th Dec moved out of the seven day figures; there will be another one in a few days when the figures from 3rd Jan drop out.
The more excitable of us look at more granularity than 7 day averages - if we look at day to day figures (by day of test), they are dropping like a stone. These figures are subject to much greater vagaries of course.

Cookie said:

Malmesbury said:

dixiedean said:

Think we can safely say the plague has moved North.

Even in the North East, the admissions look like this. Elsewhere, flat or falling, in England

Looks to me that every region has peaked now.
The consensus is the 7 day average figure, and there was a big drop when the figures from the 29th Dec moved out of the seven day figures; there will be another one in a few days when the figures from 3rd Jan drop out.
The more excitable of us look at more granularity than 7 day averages - if we look at day to day figures (by day of test), they are dropping like a stone. These figures are subject to much greater vagaries of course.

Looking at day by day figures is a good way to drive oneself mad, I find. Reading coffee grounds, on tea leaves on black chickens. At midnight.....

I'm embarrassed to say I never heard of this literary giant, who died this weekend.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/world/asia/f-sionil-jose-dead.html

An appreciation of him here:
https://fallows.substack.com/p/on-the-road-with-rabelais-remembering