There are a number of other reasons for this worth mentioning.

1. COVID-19 has a longer incubation period, so people don't know they have it as quickly and spread it more, with flu people spread it less before getting sick.
2. COVID-19 is also more infectious than the flu and has a higher death rate.
3. Flu has a publicly available vaccine, COVID-19 does not (yet)
4. Flu is seasonal, it tends to peak after the new year, it's too early to talk about what it's like this year,
5. I don't know about the statistics in America, we had record numbers of people getting vaccinated for the yearly flu, you would also expect this to reduce the numbers.
6. The flu changes every year, and isn't as deadly or as infectious as the last year

See this graph.

There's nothing political about these statements, they're simply other things worth being aware of.

Hey now if BP it would be an apology video.

You're right, a virus is smaller than the holes in the masks people wear. Usefully they don't have to be smaller for them to be effective as it's about blocking water droplets or snot.

Sadly Best to not click the link, but yes.

https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/17/wayne-county-canvassers-deadlock-certifying-november-3-election-results/6324274002/

The deep state finds it funny that you think they're Communists.

verbally simply means 'by word'

No it doesn't, it means using spoken words rather than written words. It explicitly means the opposite of what you meant.

Now stop being a little bitch.

Verbally through text?

Well, Lync became skype for business which is kind of being folded into Teams, Skype is its own entity, it's just a confusing clusterfuck of names - but this is M$ and they love doing that.

Just for some context, it's 52% job approval from one tracking poll out of 31 - a poll that had a 3.9-point bias in favour of Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm election.

Not to say that it's wrong, just that the context is useful.

Who pays for an audit? Genuinely curious. Anybody know?

From what I understand a candidate can be liable to pay for a recount when it's over the 0.25% margin, I'm not sure about an audit.

I mean his point here is that he isn't flagged for misinformation but Trump is, he's mostly just being silly.

If you want to make some money there are plenty of democrats that will take a bet that trump will not be in power in 2021, they will give you unbelievably good odds. They think the battle is alread over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8

Here's a video that talks about this.

It's just what people called me at university, spelled wrong. And because I have curly hair like Jeremy Clarkson(drunk logic?) and nothing as interesting as the name implies.

Anyway, excuse the essay here.

I agree there's definitely an argument that it's silly to try and condense anybody's political views into a description of two or three words, and it's going to be inaccurate to try. The real crutch of the matter it is that Trump's supporters are particularly hard to label, it's more an attitude of heart and mind than a set of political or economic beliefs. To me, it means means taking people as they are - with all their ambitions, differences, foibles and imperfections - and trying to make life better for them. Other creeds start by deciding how people should be in a perfect society, and then try to force everyone to conform to that ideal.

The democrats have made the mistake in believing that everyone should think like them. If you disagree with them- about asylum seekers, abortion, releasing terrorists, then you are one of the "forces of conservatism", complicit in racist murder and beyond the pale of civilisation. It's here that they made their mistake in campaigning, by focusing on being the "I'm not Trump" party they've alienated everybody that intends to or previously voted for Trump and driven a wedge between them and the rest of the country - one that already existed but is certainly not getting smaller as a result of their terrible campaigning.

My point is, while I agree with what you're saying (to a point anyway, it's disingenuous to say the Nazi's were politically left), I came out left of the spectrum - as I think many others here would if they took the test, who never the less voted for Trump. That says more about how much of a failure the democratic party is than a conspiracy to label Trump supporters fascists or Nazi's. We should be voting for them in their minds, but we're not - because they're crap.

I have a feeling there's a wider spectrum here than some would assume.

But yes I also came out in the same corner.

I'd love to see data on the members of this forum, especially compared to Reddit and other forums.

But yes if you're interested here's a good way to find out where you sit.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

FYI Matt Parker does a nice video on this in a digestible format.

Basic conclusion of the video is that you can't conclude anything sadly.

And yet sky news is stickied. Same shit different colour.

Well I don't know about you.

But I can speak for me

Three fronts.

1. Self interests, I simply do not want to get the virus, I don't like being ill and I don't like the sound of some of the effects such as "foggy brain" that people reported, I may likely survive but I'd still rather just not get it.

2. I have elderly family and vulnerable friends who are not very well. If I get the vaccine then I have less of a chance of catching it and spreading it to them, while I'm young and fit and very likely to survive it might just finish them, and I'd rather they stick around.

3. If a large number of people get the vaccine, it reduces the R rate, hopefully to below 1. If that happens then we will start to reduce the number of cases rather than increase, reducing pressure on health services - which is good for everybody.

But 1 & 2 may simply not be a concern for you, so I'd go with 3.

I've already gotten the flu vaccine for the same reasons above. Plus I'm already autistic, one more vaccine won't stop that :D /jokes.

It isn't a choice between the two... and you don't die if the vaccine isn't effective, you seem to be confused.

I believe they're using vote counts per voting centre, it's what is commonly used in detecting vote fraud. However the practicality is that it doesn't matter which you use, the only criteria that matters with Benford's law is whether P(x) is approximately proportional to 1/x over several orders-of-magnitude variation in x. Or to put it another way, the distribution must span several orders of magnitude before it's likely to meet the law.

This is why it's vital to make it clear what the p value is, as well as publish the comparisons and methodology as you don't always expect it to even be close.

Autist checking in here.

Quick take on the above.

I would provide a little more context for the argument, specifically in comparisons to previous years, and presenting the p-value clearly reading up on Roukema's analysis of the 2009 Iranian elections would be a good start.

I would be unconvinced by an argument on these grounds however from a purely mathematical perspective - we wouldn’t expect the model to really be true with actual votes, in the words of Monty Python "it's only a model", I suggest this for further reading which is a direct response to the above

I'm not saying the analysis is without value however, those who did the work deserve credit. But you have much stronger arguments elsewhere.

https://youtu.be/2AoxCkySv34?t=41

Yes I know, for the bible told me so.