Bernie Sanders could still overhaul him in theory, but he's running out of road and there is nothing in the latest batch of results to suggest that the initial batch was atypical of the rest.
For Bernie Sanders to overtake Pete Buttigieg now, he'd need to poll about 4% better than Pete Buttigieg in the remaining precincts. Given how scattered the vote has been in the rest of the results and how close the vote has been everywhere, that seems implausible.
Thank you. So the de facto winner is Trump?
Not sure. If Donald Trump has any sense, he won't want to be facing Pete Buttigieg. He now has a clearly-signposted route through to the nomination, if he's able to take it. His weaknesses are not ones that Donald Trump can easily exploit.
Pete Buttigieg's route remains complicated though. Much depends on the sturdiness of Joe Biden's support.
I think Biden's support will now collapse, to the benefit of Pete predominantly. Keep laying the old guys.
Good call from @rcs1000, though a bit sceptical I did follow him in.
The evening I spent drinking with Marianne Faithful was one of the most fun times I’ve had...
Sadly I can’t remember that much 😂
As I was saying to Michelle Obama the other day over dinner, I’m not a name dropper..
She came to speak to the union when I was at university - the president knew I was a fan of hers and took me out for dinner with her.
That make you feel more secure?
Interesting you bring up security.
I’m not impressed by name droppers. I’ve encountered a few in my life and - in my experience - rather than impressing me with their importance, I walk away being convinced of their own insecurity and lack of surety about themselves.
I've backed Hamilton have under 20.5 season points finishes at 1.73. I think there are 22 races on the calendar. China is very likely to be cancelled due to the Coronavirus. Vietnam might be too. Japan's a less likely but credible possibility. If any two of those, therefore, get cancelled, the bet wins (or is voided).
If China only is cancelled that means the bet wins with a single DNF.
That's a really interesting bet, Mr Dancer.
Hamilton has had only the one DNF in the past three seasons (Austria 2018) so I'd say to take the other side - but seeing it as a bet on the number of races taking place is a good thought.
There are currently 22 scheduled races.
I don't see how China isn't going to get cancelled at this point, every single other sporting event has been cancelled up until March (The race is scheduled for April 19th), no-one is flying there and the UK Foreign Office are advising against travel - which will invalidate everyone's insurance if they go off their own back. The setup for the teams needs to start at least a week before the race, say 8th April. F1 travelling journo Joe Saward's take on things: https://www.joeblogsf1.com/joesaward/id/00669
Vietnam is a possible cancellation if the Coronavirus becomes a bigger regional problem. It's scheduled for two weeks before China, on 5th April. Also, it's a brand new new street circuit track in the city centre of Hanoi - it's possible that the construction may be slowed down by Coronavirus so it might not be ready on time.
The other possible cancellation this season is the Dutch GP in May. There's extensive works going on at Zandvoort to get the track up to modern F1 standards, and the final go-ahead is awaiting the completion of those works.
I'd price the cancellation in China at 1/4, Vietnam at 5/1 (but a contingent event with the China cancellation) and Netherlands at 10/1 - so there's a c.80% chance we have a 21-race season and a c.15% chance we have a 20-race season (which would pay out even if Lewis scores points in every race, as he did in 2019).
I quite like the bet (but sadly don't have a working Ladbrokes account), but would read the terms carefully before putting any real money on it.
The evening I spent drinking with Marianne Faithful was one of the most fun times I’ve had...
Sadly I can’t remember that much 😂
As I was saying to Michelle Obama the other day over dinner, I’m not a name dropper..
She came to speak to the union when I was at university - the president knew I was a fan of hers and took me out for dinner with her.
That make you feel more secure?
Interesting you bring up security.
I’m not impressed by name droppers. I’ve encountered a few in my life and - in my experience - rather than impressing me with their importance, I walk away being convinced of their own insecurity and lack of surety about themselves.
You do it a lot. So perhaps reflect on that.
I’ve had this discussion in the past with Josiah Jessop.
Because of my job I meet a lot of people in senior roles. They tell me interesting stuff.
Some of that stuff I share on here. And when I do - if appropriate - I prefer to source it. And if it’s just a rumour - as with Corbyn being off the pace last year - I’ll state it’s a rumour.
In my view that level of transparency allows people to judge for themselves whether the information is valuable or not.
But if you’d rather I don’t share those insights I’m fine with that as well.
(As for Marianne Faithful - I got pissed with her, on expenses, when I was a student. So f*cking what. It was meant to be an amusing aside in a conversation, like you might have down the pub with someone. It doesn’t make any difference to me and it shouldn’t make any difference to you).
Joe Kennedy is probably having mixed emotions tonight.
He shouldn't, Sanders is now likely to be the eventual nominee after Biden's collapse (maybe with Buttigieg as VP nominee), then Trump is likely to be re elected. If Joe Kennedy wins the Massachusetts Senate race in November he will be ideally placed to follow in his great uncle's footsteps (and where his grandfather just missed out on following his assassination) in 2024
I’m not sure “just missed out” covers a failure to win the nomination after being assassinated!
Bobby Kennedy won the California primary the night he was shot but obviously he then did not get the nomination even his death was the likely but not certain cause (Humphrey may still have got it at the convention)
“His death was the likely ... cause” of not being nominated President... really!
The evening I spent drinking with Marianne Faithful was one of the most fun times I’ve had...
Sadly I can’t remember that much 😂
As I was saying to Michelle Obama the other day over dinner, I’m not a name dropper..
She came to speak to the union when I was at university - the president knew I was a fan of hers and took me out for dinner with her.
That make you feel more secure?
Interesting you bring up security.
I’m not impressed by name droppers. I’ve encountered a few in my life and - in my experience - rather than impressing me with their importance, I walk away being convinced of their own insecurity and lack of surety about themselves.
You do it a lot. So perhaps reflect on that.
I’ve had this discussion in the past with Josiah Jessop.
Because of my job I meet a lot of people in senior roles. They tell me interesting stuff.
Some of that stuff I share on here. And when I do - if appropriate - I prefer to source it. And if it’s just a rumour - as with Corbyn being off the pace last year - I’ll state it’s a rumour.
In my view that level of transparency allows people to judge for themselves whether the information is valuable or not.
But if you’d rather I don’t share those insights I’m fine with that as well.
(As for Marianne Faithful - I got pissed with her, on expenses, when I was a student. So f*cking what. It was meant to be an amusing aside in a conversation, like you might have down the pub with someone. It doesn’t make any difference to me and it shouldn’t make any difference to you).
Another day, another report on the appalling failings and culture which permitted a surgeon to mutilate thousands of women. The Patterson story is a shocker.
Meanwhile I fear that John Lewis is going to go the way of M&S and HBOS. Bizarre senior appointments of people with no relevant experience, appointments of management consultants who charge expensively for bullshit talk but deliver bugger all other than, usually, the loss of experienced and knowledgeable staff and, in the meanwhile, the day to day service suffers (of which, sadly - as it is one of my favourite shops) I have recent experience.
I hope Mayor Pete continues to do well. I have money on him.
Still, in good news it is a lovely spring day here.
Mr. Sandpit, it's not a slam dunk, but with China very likely to be axed and just one pointless finish necessary, I did find it too tempting not to back.
Joe Kennedy is probably having mixed emotions tonight.
He shouldn't, Sanders is now likely to be the eventual nominee after Biden's collapse (maybe with Buttigieg as VP nominee), then Trump is likely to be re elected. If Joe Kennedy wins the Massachusetts Senate race in November he will be ideally placed to follow in his great uncle's footsteps (and where his grandfather just missed out on following his assassination) in 2024
I’m not sure “just missed out” covers a failure to win the nomination after being assassinated!
Bobby Kennedy won the California primary the night he was shot but obviously he then did not get the nomination even his death was the likely but not certain cause (Humphrey may still have got it at the convention)
“His death was the likely ... cause” of not being nominated President... really!
As I said had he lived Humphrey could still have got it at the convention
The evening I spent drinking with Marianne Faithful was one of the most fun times I’ve had...
Sadly I can’t remember that much 😂
As I was saying to Michelle Obama the other day over dinner, I’m not a name dropper..
She came to speak to the union when I was at university - the president knew I was a fan of hers and took me out for dinner with her.
That make you feel more secure?
Interesting you bring up security.
I’m not impressed by name droppers. I’ve encountered a few in my life and - in my experience - rather than impressing me with their importance, I walk away being convinced of their own insecurity and lack of surety about themselves.
You do it a lot. So perhaps reflect on that.
I’ve had this discussion in the past with Josiah Jessop.
Because of my job I meet a lot of people in senior roles. They tell me interesting stuff.
Some of that stuff I share on here. And when I do - if appropriate - I prefer to source it. And if it’s just a rumour - as with Corbyn being off the pace last year - I’ll state it’s a rumour.
In my view that level of transparency allows people to judge for themselves whether the information is valuable or not.
But if you’d rather I don’t share those insights I’m fine with that as well.
(As for Marianne Faithful - I got pissed with her, on expenses, when I was a student. So f*cking what. It was meant to be an amusing aside in a conversation, like you might have down the pub with someone. It doesn’t make any difference to me and it shouldn’t make any difference to you).
I enjoy your anecdotes.
Me too. Keep them coming.
Though you really need to get your mother to spill the beans on Starmer.
(PS I do hope you are not breaching any confidentiality requirements. I know what investment bankers get up to.)
The evening I spent drinking with Marianne Faithful was one of the most fun times I’ve had...
Sadly I can’t remember that much 😂
As I was saying to Michelle Obama the other day over dinner, I’m not a name dropper..
She came to speak to the union when I was at university - the president knew I was a fan of hers and took me out for dinner with her.
That make you feel more secure?
Interesting you bring up security.
I’m not impressed by name droppers. I’ve encountered a few in my life and - in my experience - rather than impressing me with their importance, I walk away being convinced of their own insecurity and lack of surety about themselves.
You do it a lot. So perhaps reflect on that.
I’ve had this discussion in the past with Josiah Jessop.
Because of my job I meet a lot of people in senior roles. They tell me interesting stuff.
Some of that stuff I share on here. And when I do - if appropriate - I prefer to source it. And if it’s just a rumour - as with Corbyn being off the pace last year - I’ll state it’s a rumour.
In my view that level of transparency allows people to judge for themselves whether the information is valuable or not.
But if you’d rather I don’t share those insights I’m fine with that as well.
(As for Marianne Faithful - I got pissed with her, on expenses, when I was a student. So f*cking what. It was meant to be an amusing aside in a conversation, like you might have down the pub with someone. It doesn’t make any difference to me and it shouldn’t make any difference to you).
Mr. Sandpit, it's not a slam dunk, but with China very likely to be axed and just one pointless finish necessary, I did find it too tempting not to back.
What's the possibility of them just pushing China back to the end of the season - or adding an extra race somewhere else to make up the numbers? I appreciate that it's not the same as lots of sports and 22 isn't some magic number that they have to hit - but surely they'd prefer that to just dropping races.
The evening I spent drinking with Marianne Faithful was one of the most fun times I’ve had...
Sadly I can’t remember that much 😂
As I was saying to Michelle Obama the other day over dinner, I’m not a name dropper..
She came to speak to the union when I was at university - the president knew I was a fan of hers and took me out for dinner with her.
That make you feel more secure?
Interesting you bring up security.
I’m not impressed by name droppers. I’ve encountered a few in my life and - in my experience - rather than impressing me with their importance, I walk away being convinced of their own insecurity and lack of surety about themselves.
You do it a lot. So perhaps reflect on that.
I’ve had this discussion in the past with Josiah Jessop.
Because of my job I meet a lot of people in senior roles. They tell me interesting stuff.
Some of that stuff I share on here. And when I do - if appropriate - I prefer to source it. And if it’s just a rumour - as with Corbyn being off the pace last year - I’ll state it’s a rumour.
In my view that level of transparency allows people to judge for themselves whether the information is valuable or not.
But if you’d rather I don’t share those insights I’m fine with that as well.
(As for Marianne Faithful - I got pissed with her, on expenses, when I was a student. So f*cking what. It was meant to be an amusing aside in a conversation, like you might have down the pub with someone. It doesn’t make any difference to me and it shouldn’t make any difference to you).
I enjoy your anecdotes.
Me too. Keep them coming.
Though you really need to get your mother to spill the beans on Starmer.
(PS I do hope you are not breaching any confidentiality requirements. I know what investment bankers get up to.)
Of course not!
(The juicy stuff I keep to myself - anyway it would be way too dull for people on here)
No-one comes out of that looking good. He was petty not to shake the proffered hand. She was spiteful to rip up the speech.
No, in the face of what amounted to a confected pack of lies, delivered in an utterly divisive way, Pelosi's reaction was in proportion to what had gone before. Why should politicians who respect democracy be always required to play nicely when confronted with a mob boss masquerading as a president? Moreover, the fact that she did so in camera shot of an unaware Trump was extremely effective visually - it signalled more about her disdain for the contents of the speech in actions than could ever have been conveyed in words.
Wasn't Casino in a big hole with Sanders ? Must be mighty relieved tonight.
I was - not any more!
I'm still in a giant one with Bloomberg though.
Dammit, Casino, that’s the second time I’ve found myself in the same hole. People are going to start talking.
I am pondering laying my entire Mayor Pete position which would mean I'm flat all round.
Sensible, but where's the fun in that?
Quite. Overall I’m still ahead, but a Bloomberg win would make a serious dent in the profit. I’d certainly be laying him at these odds had I not already done so.
Interesting link suggesting that we really don't have to wait for some new super vaccine to treat this virus. Medicines that have been around as anti virals for 70 years+ seem to work fine.
Which makes it a little bit of a mystery to me how we have got where we are. The Chinese have now admitted "mistakes" in the early handling of the virus and this piece on the BBC shows that these mistakes are continuing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51379088
The other thing that came out of that piece is that this family is either incredibly unlucky or the virus is more toxic than we are being led to believe. State medicine in China seems completely overwhelmed and you can't help feeling that the number testing positive is completely meaningless when so many are not being tested at all.
No-one comes out of that looking good. He was petty not to shake the proffered hand. She was spiteful to rip up the speech.
No, in the face of what amounted to a confected pack of lies, delivered in an utterly divisive way, Pelosi's reaction was in proportion to what had gone before. Why should politicians who respect democracy be always required to play nicely when confronted with a mob boss masquerading as a president? Moreover, the fact that she did so in camera shot of an unaware Trump was extremely effective visually - it signalled more about her disdain for the contents of the speech in actions than could ever have been conveyed in words.
I agree. The spectacle of those who support this particular president pearl clutching about ‘decorum’ is delicious.
Another day, another report on the appalling failings and culture which permitted a surgeon to mutilate thousands of women. The Patterson story is a shocker.
"Concerns were first raised about Paterson in 2003 but he was not suspended until 2011, with NHS staff fearing retribution if they spoke out and managers failing to understand what he was doing. He carried on practising privately after being suspended by the NHS and doctors told the inquiry that a manager at Spire said he brought in too much money to stop him working."
This is not predominantly an NHS scandal as much as one relating to the culture of Medicine.
The problem fundamentally is that we go to professionals when we need advice on complex subjects. Whether that advice comes from a doctor, a lawyer, a banker, accountant or priest; we do have to take it on trust. When that trust is breached, or in this case deliberately abused then the whole system is damaged as well as the individual.
Within the NHS the team structure does increase the surveillance of rogue practitioners, but whistle blowing remains contentious*. In private practice there is an obvious incentive to over operate, and for the hospital to enable it.
*for example, in the Health Secretary's own locality:
No-one comes out of that looking good. He was petty not to shake the proffered hand. She was spiteful to rip up the speech.
No, in the face of what amounted to a confected pack of lies, delivered in an utterly divisive way, Pelosi's reaction was in proportion to what had gone before. Why should politicians who respect democracy be always required to play nicely when confronted with a mob boss masquerading as a president? Moreover, the fact that she did so in camera shot of an unaware Trump was extremely effective visually - it signalled more about her disdain for the contents of the speech in actions than could ever have been conveyed in words.
Whilst I agree it is concerning how divided America has become with each side not so much wanting to beat the other as holding them in total contempt. The country is becoming ungovernable.
Mr. Sandpit, it's not a slam dunk, but with China very likely to be axed and just one pointless finish necessary, I did find it too tempting not to back.
That's a good one, like your thinking.
The reliability of modern F1 cars and drivers is quite astonishing, even compared to only a few years ago. Drivers are fitter and cars safer than ever before too, Lewis Hamilton has never missed a race in 13 years. The last time he finished a race without scoring points was in Spain, 2013! He's only ever been disqualified once too, back in 2009 after being found guilty of misleading the stewards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_career_of_Lewis_Hamilton
Mr. Sandpit, it's not a slam dunk, but with China very likely to be axed and just one pointless finish necessary, I did find it too tempting not to back.
What's the possibility of them just pushing China back to the end of the season - or adding an extra race somewhere else to make up the numbers? I appreciate that it's not the same as lots of sports and 22 isn't some magic number that they have to hit - but surely they'd prefer that to just dropping races.
There's a remote possibility that a cancelled Chinese GP could be rescheduled for September, but the freight logistics make it almost impossible in practice. No chance of adding another race somewhere else either, would need commercial agreements and contracts in place that just aren't there, as well as unanimous approval from the teams.
Interesting link suggesting that we really don't have to wait for some new super vaccine to treat this virus. Medicines that have been around as anti virals for 70 years+ seem to work fine.
Which makes it a little bit of a mystery to me how we have got where we are. The Chinese have now admitted "mistakes" in the early handling of the virus and this piece on the BBC shows that these mistakes are continuing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51379088
The other thing that came out of that piece is that this family is either incredibly unlucky or the virus is more toxic than we are being led to believe. State medicine in China seems completely overwhelmed and you can't help feeling that the number testing positive is completely meaningless when so many are not being tested at all.
Remdesivir is a new drug, but chloroquine has been around for ever, so it is a mixture of old and new.
Some HIV drugs also seem to have theoretic benefits, as do ACE2 agents used for blood pressure, and tackling the cytokine cascade possibly cox 2 inhibitors and also mesalazine. All of these are readily available at present.
This is rapidly evolving science in real time, and is not yet much tested in the field. Some or all of these options may not be effective, possibly even counter productive.
We know how rubbish the polls are in relation to Biden by what's happened in Iowa. Your total faith in them is quite endearing.
Most polls had Sanders ahead in Iowa and he won the popular vote.
There is also a difference between Democratic caucus and primary polls and polls of all voters.
You are of course a great fan of polls when it suits too
I agree with you on this one, in terms of the inference of your first post. For all of the failings of Biden and Sanders, the national polls so far have been consistent in pointing to Buttigieg being significantly less competitive against Trump than either of them. The idea that Buttigieg could somehow ride to the Democrats' rescue seems fanciful - at best he might do no worse than Biden or Sanders.
If Biden can't get his act together (and he yet may) then I think that Sanders is probably the Democrats' best bet out of a chronically bad bunch at this point.
And yes, caucuses are far harder to poll than primaries, and yes, judging from 538's analysis the picture painted by the final Iowa caucus polls does not seem to have been markedly different from the result that appears to be emerging. As for Biden, his ability to get out the Democratic vote needs to be considered in a context when he would be running against Trump in a GE rather than other Democrats in a caucus. Trump has the ability to inspire Democrats to get out and vote for anyone other than Trump.
Wasn't Casino in a big hole with Sanders ? Must be mighty relieved tonight.
I was - not any more!
I'm still in a giant one with Bloomberg though.
Dammit, Casino, that’s the second time I’ve found myself in the same hole. People are going to start talking.
I am pondering laying my entire Mayor Pete position which would mean I'm flat all round.
Sensible, but where's the fun in that?
I've just done that. Cashed out because I want to invest in New Hampshire.
Are they using the same flawed technology in NH, as they used in Iowa?
No.
But it's still brand new technology in an market segment where I really wouldn't trust the players (for multiple reasons only one of which is that this type of work very rarely attracts decent programmers).
Comments
Good call from @rcs1000, though a bit sceptical I did follow him in.
Hamilton has had only the one DNF in the past three seasons (Austria 2018) so I'd say to take the other side - but seeing it as a bet on the number of races taking place is a good thought.
There are currently 22 scheduled races.
I don't see how China isn't going to get cancelled at this point, every single other sporting event has been cancelled up until March (The race is scheduled for April 19th), no-one is flying there and the UK Foreign Office are advising against travel - which will invalidate everyone's insurance if they go off their own back. The setup for the teams needs to start at least a week before the race, say 8th April.
F1 travelling journo Joe Saward's take on things: https://www.joeblogsf1.com/joesaward/id/00669
Vietnam is a possible cancellation if the Coronavirus becomes a bigger regional problem. It's scheduled for two weeks before China, on 5th April. Also, it's a brand new new street circuit track in the city centre of Hanoi - it's possible that the construction may be slowed down by Coronavirus so it might not be ready on time.
The other possible cancellation this season is the Dutch GP in May. There's extensive works going on at Zandvoort to get the track up to modern F1 standards, and the final go-ahead is awaiting the completion of those works.
I'd price the cancellation in China at 1/4, Vietnam at 5/1 (but a contingent event with the China cancellation) and Netherlands at 10/1 - so there's a c.80% chance we have a 21-race season and a c.15% chance we have a 20-race season (which would pay out even if Lewis scores points in every race, as he did in 2019).
I quite like the bet (but sadly don't have a working Ladbrokes account), but would read the terms carefully before putting any real money on it.
There are some interesting bits of science going on though.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1224797665776611330?s=19
Because of my job I meet a lot of people in senior roles. They tell me interesting stuff.
Some of that stuff I share on here. And when I do - if appropriate - I prefer to source it. And if it’s just a rumour - as with Corbyn being off the pace last year - I’ll state it’s a rumour.
In my view that level of transparency allows people to judge for themselves whether the information is valuable or not.
But if you’d rather I don’t share those insights I’m fine with that as well.
(As for Marianne Faithful - I got pissed with her, on expenses, when I was a student. So f*cking what. It was meant to be an amusing aside in a conversation, like you might have down the pub with someone. It doesn’t make any difference to me and it shouldn’t make any difference to you).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ian-patersons-11-000-patients-face-checks-after-malpractice-report-2sm8wjq2s
What is to be done? What can be done?
Meanwhile I fear that John Lewis is going to go the way of M&S and HBOS. Bizarre senior appointments of people with no relevant experience, appointments of management consultants who charge expensively for bullshit talk but deliver bugger all other than, usually, the loss of experienced and knowledgeable staff and, in the meanwhile, the day to day service suffers (of which, sadly - as it is one of my favourite shops) I have recent experience.
I hope Mayor Pete continues to do well. I have money on him.
Still, in good news it is a lovely spring day here.
Disclaimer: It was by a customer service rep, no one famous, and I have no insight into whether it is true or not.
Though you really need to get your mother to spill the beans on Starmer.
(PS I do hope you are not breaching any confidentiality requirements. I know what investment bankers get up to.)
But the photos don’t look good
People are going to start talking.
(The juicy stuff I keep to myself - anyway it would be way too dull for people on here)
There is also a difference between Democratic caucus and primary polls and polls of all voters.
You are of course a great fan of polls when it suits too
Sensible, but where's the fun in that?
Overall I’m still ahead, but a Bloomberg win would make a serious dent in the profit. I’d certainly be laying him at these odds had I not already done so.
Which makes it a little bit of a mystery to me how we have got where we are. The Chinese have now admitted "mistakes" in the early handling of the virus and this piece on the BBC shows that these mistakes are continuing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51379088
The other thing that came out of that piece is that this family is either incredibly unlucky or the virus is more toxic than we are being led to believe. State medicine in China seems completely overwhelmed and you can't help feeling that the number testing positive is completely meaningless when so many are not being tested at all.
The spectacle of those who support this particular president pearl clutching about ‘decorum’ is delicious.
"Concerns were first raised about Paterson in 2003 but he was not suspended until 2011, with NHS staff fearing retribution if they spoke out and managers failing to understand what he was doing. He carried on practising privately after being suspended by the NHS and doctors told the inquiry that a manager at Spire said he brought in too much money to stop him working."
This is not predominantly an NHS scandal as much as one relating to the culture of Medicine.
The problem fundamentally is that we go to professionals when we need advice on complex subjects. Whether that advice comes from a doctor, a lawyer, a banker, accountant or priest; we do have to take it on trust. When that trust is breached, or in this case deliberately abused then the whole system is damaged as well as the individual.
Within the NHS the team structure does increase the surveillance of rogue practitioners, but whistle blowing remains contentious*. In private practice there is an obvious incentive to over operate, and for the hospital to enable it.
*for example, in the Health Secretary's own locality:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/11/matt-hancock-wont-talk-to-us-say-bullied-doctors-at-hospital-in-suffolk
The reliability of modern F1 cars and drivers is quite astonishing, even compared to only a few years ago. Drivers are fitter and cars safer than ever before too, Lewis Hamilton has never missed a race in 13 years. The last time he finished a race without scoring points was in Spain, 2013! He's only ever been disqualified once too, back in 2009 after being found guilty of misleading the stewards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_career_of_Lewis_Hamilton
Some HIV drugs also seem to have theoretic benefits, as do ACE2 agents used for blood pressure, and tackling the cytokine cascade possibly cox 2 inhibitors and also mesalazine. All of these are readily available at present.
This is rapidly evolving science in real time, and is not yet much tested in the field. Some or all of these options may not be effective, possibly even counter productive.
If Biden can't get his act together (and he yet may) then I think that Sanders is probably the Democrats' best bet out of a chronically bad bunch at this point.
And yes, caucuses are far harder to poll than primaries, and yes, judging from 538's analysis the picture painted by the final Iowa caucus polls does not seem to have been markedly different from the result that appears to be emerging. As for Biden, his ability to get out the Democratic vote needs to be considered in a context when he would be running against Trump in a GE rather than other Democrats in a caucus. Trump has the ability to inspire Democrats to get out and vote for anyone other than Trump.