Highlights of the latest fortnightly Essential Research poll, which is lacking the really interesting stuff (the monthly leadership ratings and quarterly dump of voting intention), but covers a fair bit of ground on the budget:
• Respondents were asked whether the budget would be good or bad for various groups and interests, results for which appear to be heavily influenced by general attitudes towards the party bringing down the budget. In this cases, the budget was reckoned to be most beneficial to “people who are well off” (51% good, 8% bad) and big businesses (49% and 7%), but scored net negative ratings for people on lower incomes (30% and 33%) and “you personally” (22% and 25%). However, the budget rated more strongly across the board than last year’s, with net ratings 23% higher for the economy overall, 15% higher for families, 12% higher for younger Australians and 11% higher for average working people.
• The budget has apparently impressed respondents as being good for women, particularly compared with last year’s. Thirty-four per cent rated that it put women’s interests ahead of men’s versus 19% for vice-versa and 47% who thought it balanced, compared with respective figures last year of 14%, 31% and 54%. It would also appear easy to persuade respondents that budgets put the interests of young people ahead of old: 32% thought so this year compared with 28% for vice-versa and 40% for balanced, albeit that this is quite a lot narrower than last year’s split of 45% to 21% with 34% for balanced. As usual with a Coalition budget, many more respondents felt it put the interests of businesses ahead of employees than vice-versa (49% versus 13% with 38% for balanced, compared with 14%, 42% and 45% for last year).
• A regular question on governments’ handling of COVID-19 gave the federal government what I believe to be its weakest good rating to date of 58%, down four on last month, with the poor rating up a point to 18%. For the state governments, good ratings are down five in New South Wales to 68%, up five for Victoria to 63% and down four for Queensland to 68%.
• As did last week’s Resolve Strategic poll, and no doubt most other polls that have ever been conducted on the subject, this one finds strong opposition to an early election: 61% agreed an election this year would “just be opportunism for the Prime Minister”, compared with 39% for the alternative proposition that an early election “will be good for Australia, because a lot has changed since the last election”.
The poll was conducted Wednesday to Sunday from a sample of 1100.
I liked this response
jeremy andrews
@plainte
·
2h
Replying to
@DrDanGarcia
@leighsales
and
@rachelbaxendale
I’m not in any way medically qualified but they make me angry, so can’t imagine how it feels if it’s your profession. A high-profile ABC journalist seeming to be actively promoting (predominantly Murdoch?) views in a field she’s unqualified in is very disturbing.
ItzaDream:
As far as I can work out, there was some misinformation circulated by the Telegraph (of London) in mid 2020 and this has now (or at some time) been regurgitated by the Daily Mail.
See (from June 2020):
– https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/
There is a peer reviewed paper, also published June 2020:
– https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/qrb-discovery/article/biovacc19-a-candidate-vaccine-for-covid19-sarscov2-developed-from-analysis-of-its-general-method-of-action-for-infectivity/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527
However, this makes no claims about virus origin, as the authors’ interests are were (and are) in producing a vaccine. I presume (but have not checked) that the involvement of a Professor of Oncology in a paper on COVID19 vaccines arises from his interest in therapeutic cancer vaccines (see https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/imt-2016-0120).
There is a apparently a previous version of this paper that made some completely incidental statements about origins:
– https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/03/exclusive-coronavirus-began-accident-disease-escaped-chinese/
These “claims” are more like gossip than science:
I was a tenured academic scientist at a G08 University for more than a decade and I have never seen the term “beyond reasonable doubt” in a scientific paper, nor anything like an assertion that it is somehow correct or important (or relevant) to name the virus correctly viz “Wuhan virus”. It is not that a paper containing such assertions would somehow “fail” peer review and not be published; instead that such assertions simply do not occur. That is because (unlike lawyers, journalists, assorted arts wankers and sundry detritus) scientists are not interested in using everything as some sort of weapon in “culture wars” and are almost wholly unaware of the goings on of such wars
Alternatively, the authors of the papers were not actually interested in trying to solve the problem (by making their vaccine) at all, but were instead great freedom fighters who have now been “cancelled” by the conspiracy…
Re. Morrison’s stubbornness: apart from the ever-present “blame avoidance” angle so typical of the man, I am also quite prepared to believe that he doesn’t want any Federal quarantine stations simply because he didn’t think up the idea himself. It might even be as petty as this: he thought up the idea (after all, building Federal quarantine stations isn’t Rocket Science), but someone else thought it up too, and beat him to the punch in announcing it.
If he is seen to take advice from somebody who is not a flunky paid to offer it privately (thus signing over credit for the idea to Morrison), he usually refuses to take it. This goes double for advice from Labor Premiers or Anthony Albanese. Taking such unsolicited advice makes Morrison look weak because he didn’t come up with the idea. It detracts from the “Scotty knows best” aura he has installed around himself. It puts the person who offered the advice One-Up, and – most importantly – Morrison One-Down.
Newspaper and TV pundits would have us believe that Morrison was born into the Prime Ministership fully formed, via a kind of political immaculate conception. He certainly claims to have personal conversations with God. But whether he was born of a virgin, or is just a normal wannabee with a regulation belly-button, possessed of a rather middling intellect, a bullshit degree, and an uncanny ability to breathe through his earoles whilst spouting bullshit out of his other bodily orifices, he does seem to possess the Megalomania gene, and megalomaniacs generally see it as a sign of weakness if they get caught listening to other people’s good ideas.
I’ve always respected this epidemiologist from UNSW
Mary-Louise McLaws
@MarylouiseMcla1
·
12m
Good news gov promised all Vic aged care residents vaccinated 1 dose today. Epidemiologically next priority 20-39 yo who are largest case numbers (40%) & transmitters. Vic is hotspot so all states please donate Pfizer doses to Vic to keep all Aust safe. Vaccinate Victoria
https://www.pollbludger.net/2021/05/26/essential-research-budget-covid-19-election-timing/comment-page-39/#comment-3616227
… it would seem to be against the odds for the Labs to suck more on quarantine, vax than the Libs/ Nats. Though given the 2019 and 2013 Federal Elections …
Now if only the LOTO could have a Katy/ Kristina/ Penny trio in the house.
boerwar @ #1891 Saturday, May 29th, 2021 – 2:58 pm
And there are proposals for 2 different sites near Melbourne.
I see P1 is once again seeking to revive her now discredited version of that history: one in which she played the parts of principal (if dishonest) participant, author, editor and publisher.
I understand it’s hard to let go of a fairy story you were part of bringing into life, P1, but it really is time to admit you were disgracefully wrong. The facts have beaten you.
@MikeCarlton01 tweets
I hear the Kokoda Barracks at the army’s Canungra Training Centre in SEQ is empty. Modern accommodation for 850 people. Dining and recreation facilities. Hospital. Heliport. Secure. One hour from both RAAF Amberley and Brisbane Airport.
Why is this not a quarantine centre ?
PhoenixRed
Lol!
E. G. Theodore:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 3:24 pm
[‘That is because (unlike lawyers, journalists, assorted arts wankers and sundry detritus) scientists are not interested in using everything as some sort of weapon in “culture wars” and are almost wholly unaware of the goings on of such wars.’]
Your sanctitude is to be admired, as is your objectiveness. One can only hope to aspire to your impossibly high ideals. One lives in hope. Well, the sun’s over the yardarm – stand easy.
We all know that certain Australian political players beat the war drum from time to time. In China’s MSM, beating the war drum happens not once a day but several times a day on average. This one is about the need to increase the size of China’s nuclear arsenal:
‘China urged to increase sea-based nuclear deterrent amid US intensified strategic threat.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1224773.shtml‘
E.G.T
Speaking of lofty ideals, here is something for you to put together: the complete list of China’s medical bureaucrats, scientists and medicos who have suffered for their role in the pandemic, broadly defined.
You could start with the fate of the Wuhan lab workers who were hospitalized in mid November 2019.
Bushfire Bill @ #1906 Saturday, May 29th, 2021 – 3:39 pm
Yeah, yeah. Peddle your nasty revisionist crap somewhere else, BB.
Mavis:
This was intended as a comment on the typical case, and also as bait, to see what took the hook.
In specifics, unlike the typical scientist, I am of course aware of the “culture wars” etc: I could hardly have referred to something of which I was unaware.
The comment re the typical case is simply a statement of fact; neither more nor less than that. Whilst I think you probably wanted to say sanctimoniousness rather than sanctitude, it is neither of them. Progress will not be made by the subjection of the objective to analysis in moral terms, even if conducted with sincerity
Coronavirus: Satellite traffic images may suggest virus hit Wuhan earlier
An apparent surge in traffic outside Wuhan hospitals from August 2019 may suggest the coronavirus hit the area earlier than reported, a study says.
Harvard researchers say satellite images show an increase in traffic outside five hospitals in the Chinese city from late August to December.
The traffic spike coincided with a rise in online searches for information on symptoms like “cough” and “diarrhoea”
The researchers examined commercial satellite data from outside five Wuhan hospitals, comparing data from late summer and autumn 2018 to the same time period in 2019.
In one case, researchers counted 171 cars parked at one of Wuhan’s largest hospitals, Tianyou Hospital in October 2018.
Satellite data from the same time in 2019 showed 285 vehicles in the same place, an increase of 67%.
A surge in online searches for words associated with the symptoms of coronavirus on the Chinese search engine Baidu seemed to emerge at the same time.
“This is all about a growing body of information pointing to something taking place in Wuhan at the time,” Dr Brownstein told ABC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52975934
If one were (for the sake of argument) to accept that it is “revisionist crap” then logically there is no other place for it and the suggestion is simply a flowery rearrangement of the well known phrase “off fuck”
guytaur says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 3:43 pm
@MikeCarlton01 tweets
I hear the Kokoda Barracks at the army’s Canungra Training Centre in SEQ is empty. Modern accommodation for 850 people. Dining and recreation facilities. Hospital. Heliport. Secure. One hour from both RAAF Amberley and Brisbane Airport.
Why is this not a quarantine centre ?
The problem is quarantine accommodation based on hotels or any existing structures are in effect a series of negative pressure rooms within negative pressure rooms. Aerosol in the corridor goes into other rooms.
Only solution is purpose built facility that somehow has sterile service / circulation corridor
Look at the location – it is required for a role much more important to our national security – namely as the centralized depot for red carpet materiel!
EGT being nobbish again:
Lordy doody, he’s a word snob too! Re-writing Mavis’ posts for him. Oh, for a red pencil…
“Sanctitude” – “the state or quality of being holy, sacred or saintly” – is a perfectly OK word to describe you EGT, especially when you seem to have missed that Mavis was using it sarcastically.
E. G. Theodore @ #1916 Saturday, May 29th, 2021 – 4:15 pm
You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment. 🙂
Pollbludger’s very own self-hoisting petard also took the bait – what a productive afternoon!
Itza,
Thanks for this Itza.
I am catching up on the blog.
The Daily Mail article, and the journal article themselves are complete and utter BOLLOCKS!
This paper had all the credibility of the climate change deniers who are invited onto the ABC for “balance”, because science so obviously needs to be balanced by complete bollocks.
I will actually look a bit more at the Daily Mail article and the purported journal article – did someone referee really actually accept this? And I will comment, because I am very annoyed by junk that masquerades as science for political, financial or notoriety reasons.
From a quick read, they do some analysis of the spike protein, make some rather good matplotlib / gnu plot or similar graphs (this is not difficult ), and then draw some bizarre conclusions in no way supported by their data analysis.
Weirdly, the Daily Mail actually published the whole abstract in their commentary. I have never seen an article explaining science publish an abstract, and I have written more than a few of these, including one (as I have previously mentioned more than a few times) about a Lancet article.
And the abstract published in the Daily Mail has “Embargoed” across it!
It may as a well say “Area 51”.
Anyway, you deserve a better explanation than this, if I am to explain why the Daily Mail article is dangerous pseudoscience. And this is extremely important – the origin of SARS-CoV-2 seems to becoming like the science of climate change – highly politicised. And one side, Steve Bannon and friends seem to think that they can make money and gain political influence by pushing the “it came from
outer spacea laboratory” side.‘phoenixRED says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 4:12 pm
Coronavirus: Satellite traffic images may suggest virus hit Wuhan earlier
An apparent surge in traffic outside Wuhan hospitals from August 2019 may suggest the coronavirus hit the area earlier than reported, a study says.’
——————————————-
Bit by bit the edifice…
One of the lines used to discredit any Wuhan lab connection with the pandemic was that it was active in other locations in China before it ramped up in Wuhan. The logic was that if it had leaked from the Wuhan lab then Wuhan would have been first in line for an outbreak.
D&M
Is there some other article somehow available at the Daily Mail?
The only article I can see is one published in June 2020:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/qrb-discovery/article/biovacc19-a-candidate-vaccine-for-covid19-sarscov2-developed-from-analysis-of-its-general-method-of-action-for-infectivity/DBBC0FA6E3763B0067CAAD8F3363E527
which does not refer to origins of the virus (and is about vaccines, which the authors were aiming to do)
Whatever else this is, it certainly is horseshit And as far as I can see it is June 2020 horseshit, not May 2021…
My view is that the comrades could clear it up (probably have already) by allowing access to all the data.
But they are probably enjoying laughing at all the certainties being peddled on their behalf.
Oh dear, I have fallen for Puppet Master EGT’s devilish plot. He toys with the lesser of us, and then he strikes. First Mavis then me.
Not wishing to be too sanctimonious about it, but you could always go and “indulge in some revisionist crap” as an option, Eddie.
Mavis
I should also say, regarding the Daily Mail article, that what is obvious to me from my science background is not obvious to other people.
I find the medical, scientific and engineering stuff on this blog is easy for me to follow and understand.
On the other hand, the legal stuff is beyond my ken. I can easily see why a legal mind would give weight to something published in a scientific journal (and Cambridge University Press at that).
There are quite a few things that get past referees that probably shouldn’t. But generally they are not important, and other scientists in the field (who inexplicably think the subject area is important) will quickly analyse their own data that has been sitting around for a while, and publish to refute the unjustified conclusion/s from scant data.
My great scientific discovery was showing that a popular amino acid had in fact NOT be found in the interstellar medium, despite the journal article claiming it has. Mine was one of a few articles.
Like the guy, who when I asked what he did for his PhD, said that he discovered minus-1 exoplanets (i.e. showed that a claimed exoplanet was no such thing).
But in science it is not a majority verdict. It is new information presented to the jury / bench, in some sort of never ending case.
Edit: There are thousands of scientific journals and millions of articles per year. Science is a self-correcting process. Referees do their best, but some articles in scientific journals have errors. these errors are picked up in subsequent journal articles, we hope. [ Contribution from OH. We are chewing the fat over craft beers in our warm dog friendly local. Ned (the kelpie) is sitting on the step right near us.]
The claim in the article is that they have proven it without data from the comrades. i.e. it’s something that can be tested without that data.
‘DisplayName says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 4:47 pm
The claim in the article is that they have proven it without data from the comrades. i.e. it’s something that can be tested without that data.’
———————————————————————
The only certainty is that the comrades are hiding the data that might give some certainty.
Boerwar,
And like any other country in the world that you aimed such a fishing lure at, they would simply tell you to get fucked.
Well, if you think the authors of that article can’t prove their claim without data from the comrades, then take it up with them, boerwar.
I have to disagree with Bushfire Bill. Scott Morrison hasn’t figured out how to breath in oxygen through his ears while he speaks but like his animal world equivalent he breathes it in through the opposite end to his mouth. 🙂
The thing about petards is that it is best to leave them to their own devices, wait patiently at some distance, and … BANG!
I don’t know why boerwar is casting doubt on the article he’s been using to support his suppositions. I can only put it down to some clever strategy or tactic that I don’t understand.
‘Barney in Bira says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 4:53 pm
Boerwar,
And like any other country in the world that you aimed such a fishing lure at, they would simply tell you to get fucked.’
————————
Classy abuse!
The WHO Team had a shouting match with the comrades about gaining access to the 2019 samples. The comrades simply told the WHO Team to go and get fucked.
Of course a petard is a bomb, not some sort of crane.
D&M brought up a point earlier on that is fairly representative.
Paraphrased, it’s: “If Steve Bannon thinks it’s true, then it must be false.”
Perfectly understandable, but not anywhere near conclusive. Plenty of other people who are not Steve Bannon think it’s worth a look, too, including Joe Biden, who has ordered an investigation. There is no love lost between himself and Mr Bannon.
Someone else might just as easily say: “If Zerlo thinks it’s false, then it must be true.”
Same logic. Contrary conclusion.
Similarly, just because an article is in the Daily Mail, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically false. Exaggerated, maybe. Almost unreadable due to chaotic, cluttered layout? Certainly. Opinionated and sensationalist? For sure. Not published yet? Well, that’s not an argument once it is published, is it? So we can scratch that one, unless D&M knows the minds of the editors of the journal better than they do themselves, and can judge a scholarly article based on an abstract published in… gulp… an unreliable rag like the Daily Mail.
The Daily Mail’s credibility measure works both ways in this instance: it shouldn’t be relied upon to publish an accurate report about a scientific article and – blow me down – it shouldn’t be relied upon to publish an accurate report about a scientific article.
The whole day (and PB) needed spicing up, so I’ve tossed raw prawns in butter/oil with garlic, ginger, chili, cardamom, mixed spice and sour cream.
I feel brighter now!
D& M, can’t be a real Kelpie if it’s sitting. Should be walking in ever diminishing circles, herding you lot closer together.
boerwarsays:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:03 pm
You were of course there?
Go for the tabloid media version. That’s real classy.
Firsthand reports from people there suggest a less sinister scenario.
‘DisplayName says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 4:57 pm
I don’t know why boerwar is casting doubt on the article he’s been using to support his suppositions. I can only put it down to some clever strategy or tactic that I don’t understand.’
—————————————————–
I have not read it. It has not been published.
My point in relation that article was that the first thing that happened would be a sustained attempt at attacking the credibility of the authors. This went exactly as predicted. While this was happening the attackers, who already KNEW that the article had to be wrong, had NOT read the article because it had not been published. Foolishness and absurdities abound.
I know it is difficult for scientists and CPC fellow travelers to understand but we DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA THAT MATTERS.
Any certainties are piffle.
Here are some issues that westerners are expected not to think about:
1. There is more than one lab in China capable of doing viral research. At the same time as the pandemic was getting going the China swine herd was failing to recover because of some illegal shit vaccine bodgied up in a China lab. The first human clone was done in a China lab, apparently illegally.
3. No-one has demonstrated one way or another that the virus did not naturally mutate to pandemic grade in the Wuhan lab. Nothing deliberate required.
4. Coverups in China are NORMAL, not exceptional. There is plenty of evidence that aspects of the pandemic, including its origins and its early stages and especially including the samples, were covered up in China.
Bushfire Bill says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 3:39 pm
I see P1 is once again seeking to revive her now discredited version of that history: one in which she played the parts of principal (if dishonest) participant, author, editor and publisher.
I understand it’s hard to let go of a fairy story you were part of bringing into life, P1, but it really is time to admit you were disgracefully wrong. The facts have beaten you.
________________________________________
Thats a bit rich coming from you.
Pls tell us what exactly your wife was accused off when she was “suspended” by NSW Health.
This is an extraordinary step – and unlikely to be over a paper clip.
If an assertion appears in an article in the Daily Mail or, for that matter in one in the Daily Telegraph or in a press release by a Morrison Government spokesman, it is not necessarily false. However, i wouldn’t believe it until I’ve seen it corroborated in a credible source.
BiB
You are getting both abusive and silly. I was not there. So what. Neither were you.
WHO Team members reported the shouting match(es) the reason for the shouting match(es) and that what they got as a result were NOT direct access to the samples but summary results put together by Chinese researchers.
‘Steve777 says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:14 pm
If an assertion appears in an article in the Daily Mail or, for that matter in one in the Daily Telegraph or in a press release by a Morrison Government spokesman, it is not necessarily false. However, i wouldn’t believe it until I’ve seen it corroborated in a credible source.’
——————————–
I think you would be pretty safe to adopt an attitude that it is likely to be distorted in some way, shape or fashion until you learn otherwise.
C@tmomma says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 1:56 pm
Another stupid idiot who thinks anyone has anything positive to say about China is automatically CCP apologist, paid apolgist, etc.
FUCK YOU.
boerwar
The article in question is a scientific paper. That means it presents a testable hypothesis. My understanding is that it does so without relying on data from the comrades. You claim that it can only be tested using data from the comrades. That is, you imply the authors have made a mistake.
You are being too clever for my puny little human-brain to keep up :P.
‘Steve777 says:
Saturday, May 29, 2021 at 5:04 pm
Of course a petard is a bomb, not some sort of crane.’
———————-
LOL.
Here we have a notorious tabloid reporting on the shouting matches about access to the raw data:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html