Updating 2% downwards. Joe Biden delivered an acceptance speech that even FOX News has positive sentiment about, see following front page headlines: - [Chris Wallace says Biden was effective in blowing holes in Trump claim during DNC speech](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chris-wallace-reaction-joe-biden-dnc-speech) - [Biden promises a healing presence in speech praised by left and right](https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-promises-a-healing-presence-in-speech-praised-by-left-and-right) - [John Podhoretz: Biden scores big due to low expectations](htt...
> Trump ahead of where he was against Hillary in 2016 in battleground states @(nextbigfuture) noting these caveats: 1. Hillary's ratings were hit by the emails scandal after T-67 days, so polls at T-x days are not directly comparable to chance of victory. 2. It seems like RCP picked six battleground states based on 2020's polls. This is not entirely a fair comparison just because some 2016 battlegrounds (NH, NV) moved to be D-lean in 2020 and were replaced with 2016 D-lean states (WI, MI, PA), you would expect this measurement to lean Republican. 3. Th...

@Jgalt thanks for the source for a higher res version! I found it most helpful to focus on the stars on the flag on the right.

But after seeing this version in addition to the Twitter one, it looks like these changes are regular and periodic, so they are then likely to be the MPEG intra-frames, i.e. an expected compression artifact.

@Sylvain I think my suggestion is only as outrageous as catching COVID-19 on purpose to win a question :D

The R value of Covid-19 in Texas is 1.2 and rising.`[0]` I think there's a 60% chance that the following factors will cause a Biden-victory upset in Texas: * Expected deaths for Texas if we apply data from Sweden's inaction after 100 days`[1]` of a mostly unchecked outbreak is 15k people.`[2] `(Adjusting from a population of 10M to 29M) * Trump's current polling-based lead in Texas is around 60k`[3]` * More of these imminent deaths will hit people with lower education and higher age, who tend to be Republican. * Other than the loss of the votes of the ...

Not that it matters, but if a state goes

  • Biden: 1M votes
  • Kanye: 499k votes
  • Trump: 498k votes

this would not resolve positive, which is a fun hypothetical scenario.

Facebook announcements:

  • Political ad blackout
  • Clampdown on voter dissuasion
  • Ban on claiming ‘false victory’
  • Lots more info for voters

https://twitter.com/WhoTargetsMe/status/13014…

@randallburns that's higher than his chances of winning the popular vote right now.

I can't find any numbers reporting only San Francisco cases on any of the sources listed in the question (JHU, CDC, or WHO.) Could someone point out where to find them?

@Tamay aw shucks, thank you! Honestly I don't know how this happened, I see everyone in the comments doing proper modelling and research, with a super deep understanding of epidemiology and the operations specific to Covid-19.

In the meantime I'm just here looking at numbers, eyeballing it, and somehow being all the way up there? It's honestly so confusing.

— edited by underyx

As of 19:07 GMT on April 1, which is seven minutes after 12:00 PT (the resolution time mentioned in the description):

Alameda: 313 confirmed

Contra Costa: 222 confirmed

Marin: 107 confirmed

Napa: 15 confirmed

San Francisco: 397 confirmed

San Mateo: 388 confirmed

Santa Clara: 890 confirmed

Solano: 49 confirmed

Sonoma: 78 confirmed

A total of 2,456 confirmed cases.

— edited by underyx

Thanks for the clarification. This made me flip to a much lower percentage, as I think the most likely outcome is broadcasting without a live audience. Precedent for this would be today's announcement that the Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix of 2020 is now going to be participants-only.

— edited by underyx

A respected Hungarian news organization released [data from some 'private EU economic report'](https://index.hu/gazdasag/2020/04/05/mindossze_66_szazalekon_porog_az_europai_gazdasag/). ### Caveats - The article talks about "economic output" but doesn't make the metric clear, I'm just assuming GDP - The article seems to imply that this report is from the European Commission, but doesn't outright say so - The article says this anything about the timeframe measured other than that the comparison is to 2019. I'd assume 2019 March vs. 2020 March, or maybe ...

Isn't this too easy to manipulate by flooding the site with 900k predictions? Not only does that endanger the integrity of this question, but even just one actor trying to manipulate the outcome of this question would introduce lots of noise to all other questions, as well.

@KnowName

the DOB’s were all wrong, all being marked as 01-01-1900

The guy behind the US Election Project posted on Twitter last week that 01/01/1900 is set as DoB when moving to electronic systems if they cannot discern the correct DoB in manual records.

@underyx oh, I can answer my own question. If the only two possible resolutions are ambiguous or positive, the only reasonable prediction is 99%, however unlikely positive resolution is.

In this case, why not close the question retroactively, and wait and see if the resolution is ambiguous or positive by resolve date?